U.S. ambassador to Libya, 3 others killed in rocket attack, witness says
The United States ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed in a rocket attack on the American Consulate in the city of Benghazi on Tuesday, a contractor working at the mission said Wednesday after seeing Stevens' body.
Three American security staff were also killed, said the contractor, who asked not to be named for security reasons.
He said he saw all four bodies on the street Wednesday morning. The bodies are now in the Central Hospital in Benghazi, he said.
Libyan Deputy Prime Minister Mustafa Abushagur appeared to confirm that the envoy had been killed, saying that Stevens was "a friend of Libya, and we are shocked at the the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi."
"I condemn these barbaric acts in the strongest possible terms. This is an attack on America, Libya and free people everywhere," Abushagur said on Twitter.
The contractor in Benghazi said he could hear rocket-propelled grenade attacks last night.
Libyans were also killed, the contractor said, saying the victims were shot on the spot.
The deaths came as protesters attacked U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya and Egypt on Tuesday, angry about an online film considered offensive to Islam.
The United States has not confirmed the deaths.
Stevens was the American envoy to the Libyan rebel movement that overthrew dictator Moammar Gadhafi last year, based in the rebel capital of Benghazi.
A speaker of Arabic and French, he was among the first American diplomats sent to Libya in 2007 when the United States resumed ties with the Gadhafi regime.
The last time an American ambassador was killed by terrorists was in 1979, when the envoy to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs, was kidnapped and killed during an attempt to rescue him, according to State Department records.
On September 12 2012 23:00 Meta wrote: Might want to add this to the OP:
Apparently these killings were a reaction to this ridiculous, hilariously bad film released yesterday. Freedom of speech will never happen in the middle east.
US President Obama to give 10:35 am ET statement on killing of US ambassador's death; Sec Clinton to attend US officials tell @NBCNews that State Department has requested additional units of Marines be airlifted to Libya to bolster security at US embassy
................................ Israeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
KwarK edited the op to say: One of the dead was a known and beloved online gamer and part of the EVE Online community. He was a hugely significant community member and was a player elected representative in EVE's CSM, a real life advisory council on the direction the game should take. A fuller obituary can be found here. http://themittani.com/news/rip-vile-rat
We hear about horrible news like this often in the world but often as a remote thing that happens to someone else. But for a significant portion of the gaming community this tragedy touched one of their own.
Pro-American supporters have taken to the streets in Libya today to distance themselves from the rocket attack which killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens.
The diplomat, who has campaigned for peace in the Middle East, was killed by militants in the city of Benghazi on Tuesday.
Youngsters were among those who waved placards which stated 'this does not represent us' to express their dismay at the attacks.
One photograph shows a child holding a banner, which although containing some spelling mistakes had a clear message: 'Sorry people of America this is not the behaviour of our Islam and prophet,' it read.
Scribbled on another sign was the simple phrase 'Benghazi is against terrorism' while a third professed affection for the 52-year-old exclaiming: 'Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.'
A placard written in Arabic sent out a message to those attempting to exert their power on the war-torn country.
It said: 'No to al Qaeda, no to violence, this is a youth revolution.'
Another read: 'No No No to Al Qaeda.'
The rally came the day after Mr Stevens became the first U.S. ambassador to be killed by terrorism in 33 years.
Stevens was struck down in a rocket attack by forces unleashed after Muammar Gaddafi's power crumbled - an uprising the ambassador had strongly supported.
UPDATES:
On September 20 2012 11:34 Joedaddy wrote: New developments:
TL/DR: U.S. Government officials are now labeling the attack as a terrorist attack. There is evidence suggesting a link between the attack and Al Qaeda. Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Gitmo detainee and associate of Osama Bin Laden, is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack.
While there hasn't been a final decision on what motivated the attack, there is a lot of evidence that suggests the youtube video had little/nothing to do with the attack. Consequently, the White House is back tracking on its claim that the youtube video is what sparked this attack.
Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act. "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. Olsen echoed administration colleagues in saying U.S. officials have no specific intelligence about "significant advanced planning or coordination" for the attack. However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism. Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate. Olson, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates. "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. Still, Olsen said "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy, the attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours," Olson said. Carney said hours earlier that there still is "no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack," which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. "I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing. Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video. "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo." However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim. In the face of these conflicting accounts, Carney on Tuesday deferred to the ongoing investigation and opened the door to the possibility of other explanations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called Wednesday for an independent review of the attack. "A State Department Accountability Review Board to look into the Benghazi attack is not sufficient," Collins said. "Given the loss of the lives of four Americans who were serving their country and the serious questions that have been raised about the security at our Consulate in Benghazi, it is imperative that a non-political, no-holds-barred examination be conducted."
There is also evidence supporting a theory that the protests and subsequent attack was in retaliation for the ongoing imprisonment of "The Blind Sheikh."
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."
The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack. The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable." The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released." It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film. Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks." Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a Breitbart.com report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report. "Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports. "If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ... "While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength." They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness."
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
No excuse to defend these terrorists. I understand that it is unwise but by your logic you should never criticize muslims, communists, neonazi's etc. Because they won't think and just start killing people who critisize them.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
No excuse to defend these terrorists. I understand that it is unwise but by your logic you should never criticize muslims, communists, neonazi's etc. Because they won't think and just start killing people who critisize them.
I never defended anyone. Those are straight facts.
It is well known that simple-minded believers are unreasonable, especially islamistic ones nowadays. The christians e.g. already had their time of slaughter and killing. Therefor, one should think about what a movie can cause. No questioning the killing is as wrong as something can be wrong. But try facing unreasonable idiots with reasoning...
On September 12 2012 20:04 Bahamut1337 wrote: The Islamic Jihadists also attacked a Egyptian embassy. Perhaps time for the US to start picking proper allies instead of Pro Jihad nations.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
No excuse to defend these terrorists. I understand that it is unwise but by your logic you should never criticize muslims, communists, neonazi's etc. Because they won't think and just start killing people who critisize them.
I never defended anyone. Those are straight facts.
It is well known that simple-minded believers are unreasonable, especially islamistic ones nowadays. The christians e.g. already had their time of slaughter and killing. Therefor, one should think about what a movie can cause. No questioning the killing is as wrong as something can be wrong. But try facing unreasonable idiots with reasoning...
In other words give islam a special status to protect it above all other religions just like the OIC is trying to archieve.
One would think a german would be against giving a group special status above others..
Fact is that the world must condemn this act. Investigate to wheter autorities knew of this ( big chance there was) and if so cut all military and diplomatic ties and aid.
On September 12 2012 20:04 Bahamut1337 wrote: The Islamic Jihadists also attacked a Egyptian embassy. Perhaps time for the US to start picking proper allies instead of Pro Jihad nations.
"Pro Jihad nations"... what? Don't let a group of crazies distort your view of an entire nation.
Since Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood who has a nice little slogan
''The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."[9][10] Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."[8]''
Not to mention the close links of many elements of the Muslim Brotherhood with Jihad groups. Yes a pro Jihad nation.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
No excuse to defend these terrorists. I understand that it is unwise but by your logic you should never criticize muslims, communists, neonazi's etc. Because they won't think and just start killing people who critisize them.
I never defended anyone. Those are straight facts.
It is well known that simple-minded believers are unreasonable, especially islamistic ones nowadays. The christians e.g. already had their time of slaughter and killing. Therefor, one should think about what a movie can cause. No questioning the killing is as wrong as something can be wrong. But try facing unreasonable idiots with reasoning...
In other words give islam a special status to protect it above all other religions just like the OIC is trying to archieve.
One would think a german would be against giving a group special status above others..
Fact is that the world must condemn this act. Investigate to wheter autorities knew of this ( big chance there was) and if so cut all military and diplomatic ties and aid.
first page, Nazi card allready played I am impressed mister.
And on september fucking 11th as well... Im not american, but im fuming right now... Did you guys see the pictures of your half naked ambassador being dragged around by a mob??
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
No excuse to defend these terrorists. I understand that it is unwise but by your logic you should never criticize muslims, communists, neonazi's etc. Because they won't think and just start killing people who critisize them.
I never defended anyone. Those are straight facts.
It is well known that simple-minded believers are unreasonable, especially islamistic ones nowadays. The christians e.g. already had their time of slaughter and killing. Therefor, one should think about what a movie can cause. No questioning the killing is as wrong as something can be wrong. But try facing unreasonable idiots with reasoning...
In other words give islam a special status to protect it above all other religions just like the OIC is trying to archieve.
One would think a german would be against giving a group special status above others..
Fact is that the world must condemn this act. Investigate to wheter autorities knew of this ( big chance there was) and if so cut all military and diplomatic ties and aid.
You are aware that you keep intepreting things into me stating facts? I dont give anyone a special status.
It is like in your private/business life. All your action have consequences you should/may think of. And if you release a movie stating islam=cancer and are surprised some simpletons are going crazy, then that is just bluntly said, a lie or the guy is incredible stupid. (-> Here you can interpret, that I am not surprised of what happened at all and nothing else)
If you kill someone you have to face consequences, and I hope they will face consequences (though I doubt it).
I couldnt care less about religion and believers. They shall do what they want to as long as they keep their stuff for themselves and dont annoy me with their "reasoning".
On September 12 2012 19:53 redviper wrote: Its completely over the top to call the militants terrorists.
Also this is what comes from supporting the rebels in order to profit from oil.
Why? Shooting rockets at an embassy and executing civilians witnesses is a militant act? No that's terroris my friend.
Because neither of these things are terrorist actions in of themselves. Shooting rockets at an embassy is an act of war, and killing civilian witnesses is murder. These groups didn't plan it out to cause terror to invoke political change. It was more an aggressive action of militants rather than a terrorist action.
On September 12 2012 20:19 ELA wrote: And on september fucking 11th as well... Im not american, but im fuming right now... Did you guys see the pictures of your half naked ambassador being dragged around by a mob??
Faith in the Arab Spring = gone
Funny that you blame the Arab Spring for this. The intervention in Libya by Nato killed the Arab Spring dead. The NTC in libya was essentially people in exile because of crimes against libya. Incidentally, I wonder where this outrage was when Nato killed Qaddafi's grandchildren.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Did you take the time to think as why it is a violent religion? They are the most persecuted, insulted religion, I'm not justifying radicals, and by the way, no wonder so many idiots join the terrorists when you see people generalize their WHOLE religion because of few crazy extremists, there are 1 600 000 000 muslims on our planet, maybe, I dont know but lets say 10%, 160 millions are extremists, maybe 1 million are actively helping terrorists or are terrorists, and people still bash them ALL the time, many of their countries have been in wars, most of them disregarding civilians population, they are pictured everywhere as evil and dangerous. So yeah, they are touchy when it comes to their religion, and especially to their prophet, so leave them the fuck alone in general. Christianity gets bashed all the time? Ahaha are you fucking kidding me? No "we're not" (i'm atheist, but european so... my town must have something like 10 churchs for 100 000 people, I live in a christian based culture), our medias are constantly biased on the view of Islam and spread fear about them, focusing on the few extremists, how rare it is that we actually see something about middle east countries that isnt terrorism or war. So of course this isnt a valid reason for innocent to get killed, especially a state official who's death will only bring more trouble and negative attention, but they have another fucking culture, some might consider it medieval and idiotic, some might find it barbaric, misogynist (dont know if it's the right word), I just find it different, they evolved from a completely different situation, they live in a completely different situation, just like some regions of Africa, China, India, South America, global medias, just brought the weird concept of "one retard makes a movie insulting X, 10 millions protest and attack ambassy because of it". God damn it I'm so fucking tired of the ignorant point of view people project on muslim countries, they wont ever set a foot there, they probably never knew a muslim person, but they feel able to generalize 1.6 FUCKING BILLION people over CNN and shit like that, it is whats wrong with humanity, you have access to information, but you just choose to deny it, eat what people feed you, and run copy pasta that shit around on the internet. Bleh
Edit: Briefly checked you post history, you obviously are simply racist towards muslim and paranoid, you only post about that in every thread that is remotely related to middle east countries and Islam, well, guess I read you well the first time, keep up the hate man, only way to fight extremism is more extremism right?
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
On September 12 2012 20:04 Bahamut1337 wrote: The Islamic Jihadists also attacked a Egyptian embassy. Perhaps time for the US to start picking proper allies instead of Pro Jihad nations.
"Pro Jihad nations"... what? Don't let a group of crazies distort your view of an entire nation.
Since Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood who has a nice little slogan
''The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."[9][10] Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."[8]''
Not to mention the close links of many elements of the Muslim Brotherhood with Jihad groups. Yes a pro Jihad nation.
Reading your posts in this thread, your anti-Muslim rhetoric is pretty disgusting. Ever since Morsi has taken office, have Egyptians suddenly begun suicide bombing Israelis and Americans or something that I haven't heard? On the contrary, Morsi has even opposed the Syrian regime and has been working to get Assad removed (though you can say this is politically motivated with Syria being Iran's ally and Iran being Shia).
The murders that occurred happened in Libya. In both Libya and Egypt, authorities and the military have been trying to protect the U.S. embassy. It's not entirely Egypt's fault there are a lot of Salafi nutters. I feel sorry for all these Muslims who have their name tarnished because there's a minority population of intolerant, violent crazies dragging their name through the mud. Doesn't help when people looking from the outside are intolerant as well.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Did you take the time to think as why it is a violent religion? They are the most persecuted, insulted religion, I'm not justifying radicals, and by the way, no wonder so many idiots join the terrorists when you see people generalize their WHOLE religion because of few crazy extremists, there are 1 600 000 000 muslims on our planet, maybe, I dont know but lets say 10%, 160 millions are extremists, maybe 1 million are actively helping terrorists or are terrorists, and people still bash them ALL the time, many of their countries have been in wars, most of them disregarding civilians population, they are pictured everywhere as evil and dangerous. So yeah, they are touchy when it comes to their religion, and especially to their prophet, so leave them the fuck alone in general. Christianity gets bashed all the time? Ahaha are you fucking kidding me? No "we're not" (i'm atheist, but european so... my town must have something like 10 churchs for 100 000 people, I live in a christian based culture), our medias are constantly biased on the view of Islam and spread fear about them, focusing on the few extremists, how rare it is that we actually see something about middle east countries that isnt terrorism or war. So of course this isnt a valid reason for innocent to get killed, especially a state official who's death will only bring more trouble and negative attention, but they have another fucking culture, some might consider it medieval and idiotic, some might find it barbaric, misogynist (dont know if it's the right word), I just find it different, they evolved from a completely different situation, they live in a completely different situation, just like some regions of Africa, China, India, South America, global medias, just brought the weird concept of "one retard makes a movie insulting X, 10 millions protest and attack ambassy because of it". God damn it I'm so fucking tired of the ignorant point of view people project on muslim countries, they wont ever set a foot there, they probably never knew a muslim person, but they feel able to generalize 1.6 FUCKING BILLION people over CNN and shit like that, it is whats wrong with humanity, you have access to information, but you just choose to deny it, eat what people feed you, and run copy pasta that shit around on the internet. Bleh
The top 10 of religious prosecution is virtually all Islamic nations, they are not more proscuted then Christians not by a long shot.
Seven of the ten countries with the highest – that is, worst – grades when it comes to government restrictions on religion were OIC countries – Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Malaysia and Indonesia. The other three were China, Burma and Eritrea.
Now add in the Islamic World is SILENT after terrorist attacks, the constant backstabbing ( teling on western news how terrible the london attacks are, followed by calling the terrorists the glorious 7 for their own audience) add in the Islamic apartheid which is present in virtually every Islamic nation and more, and you have a reason why islam is currently so despised.
Im also ''fucking tired'' of Islam's violence, oppression, and constant whining how bad they have it. They get far more freedom in the west and the rest of the world they have EVER given. Im sick of left wing nutties who pretend Islam is a normal religion with peaceful intentions, it is obvious this is not the case, and has never been the case.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Did you take the time to think as why it is a violent religion? They are the most persecuted, insulted religion, I'm not justifying radicals, and by the way, no wonder so many idiots join the terrorists when you see people generalize their WHOLE religion because of few crazy extremists, there are 1 600 000 000 muslims on our planet, maybe, I dont know but lets say 10%, 160 millions are extremists, maybe 1 million are actively helping terrorists or are terrorists, and people still bash them ALL the time, many of their countries have been in wars, most of them disregarding civilians population, they are pictured everywhere as evil and dangerous. So yeah, they are touchy when it comes to their religion, and especially to their prophet, so leave them the fuck alone in general. Christianity gets bashed all the time? Ahaha are you fucking kidding me? No "we're not" (i'm atheist, but european so... my town must have something like 10 churchs for 100 000 people, I live in a christian based culture), our medias are constantly biased on the view of Islam and spread fear about them, focusing on the few extremists, how rare it is that we actually see something about middle east countries that isnt terrorism or war. So of course this isnt a valid reason for innocent to get killed, especially a state official who's death will only bring more trouble and negative attention, but they have another fucking culture, some might consider it medieval and idiotic, some might find it barbaric, misogynist (dont know if it's the right word), I just find it different, they evolved from a completely different situation, they live in a completely different situation, just like some regions of Africa, China, India, South America, global medias, just brought the weird concept of "one retard makes a movie insulting X, 10 millions protest and attack ambassy because of it". God damn it I'm so fucking tired of the ignorant point of view people project on muslim countries, they wont ever set a foot there, they probably never knew a muslim person, but they feel able to generalize 1.6 FUCKING BILLION people over CNN and shit like that, it is whats wrong with humanity, you have access to information, but you just choose to deny it, eat what people feed you, and run copy pasta that shit around on the internet. Bleh
The top 10 of religious prosecution is virtually all Islamic nations, they are not more proscuted then Christians not by a long shot.
Seven of the ten countries with the highest – that is, worst – grades when it comes to government restrictions on religion were OIC countries – Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Malaysia and Indonesia. The other three were China, Burma and Eritrea.
Now add in the Islamic World is SILENT after terrorist attacks, the constant backstabbing ( teling on western news how terrible the london attacks are, followed by calling the terrorists the glorious 7 for their own audience) add in the Islamic apartheid which is present in virtually every Islamic nation and more, and you have a reason why islam is currently so despised.
Im also ''fucking tired'' of Islam's violence, oppression, and constant whining how bad they have it. They get far more freedom in the west and the rest of the world they have EVER given. Im sick of left wing nutties who pretend Islam is a normal religion with peaceful intentions, it is obvious this is not the case, and has never been the case.
Tell me one thing, why do you pretend to be from Ghana?
On September 12 2012 20:04 Bahamut1337 wrote: The Islamic Jihadists also attacked a Egyptian embassy. Perhaps time for the US to start picking proper allies instead of Pro Jihad nations.
"Pro Jihad nations"... what? Don't let a group of crazies distort your view of an entire nation.
Since Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood who has a nice little slogan
''The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."[9][10] Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."[8]''
Not to mention the close links of many elements of the Muslim Brotherhood with Jihad groups. Yes a pro Jihad nation.
Reading your posts in this thread, your anti-Muslim rhetoric is pretty disgusting. Ever since Morsi has taken office, have Egyptians suddenly begun suicide bombing Israelis and Americans or something that I haven't heard? On the contrary, Morsi has even opposed the Syrian regime and has been working to get Assad removed (though you can say this is politically motivated with Syria being Iran's ally and Iran being Shia).
The murders that occurred happened in Libya. In both Libya and Egypt, authorities and the military have been trying to protect the U.S. embassy. It's not entirely Egypt's fault there are a lot of Salafi nutters. I feel sorry for all these Muslims who have their name tarnished because there's a minority population of intolerant, violent crazies dragging their name through the mud. Doesn't help when people looking from the outside are intolerant as well.
Im pretty disgusted as well, by your blatant ignorance. Terrorists have since the Muslim Brotherhood took office attacked Israel in numerous occasions from the Sinai, using the brotherhood's weak will to stop terrorism to attack.
The military has not tried to protect the buildings, if they did this would not have happened at all. Also that ''miniority of crazie's '' is far far greater among the Muslim population then any Christian group, or other religious group. The Koran itself is easy to use for means of terrorism, using the many hateful, violent verses and stories aimed at infidels.
On September 12 2012 20:04 Bahamut1337 wrote: The Islamic Jihadists also attacked a Egyptian embassy. Perhaps time for the US to start picking proper allies instead of Pro Jihad nations.
"Pro Jihad nations"... what? Don't let a group of crazies distort your view of an entire nation.
Since Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood who has a nice little slogan
''The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."[9][10] Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."[8]''
Not to mention the close links of many elements of the Muslim Brotherhood with Jihad groups. Yes a pro Jihad nation.
The murders that occurred happened in Libya. In both Libya and Egypt, authorities and the military have been trying to protect the U.S. embassy. It's not entirely Egypt's fault there are a lot of Salafi nutters. I feel sorry for all these Muslims who have their name tarnished because there's a minority population of intolerant, violent crazies dragging their name through the mud. Doesn't help when people looking from the outside are intolerant as well.
It seems like you're just denying that right now Islam is not bad for society. In this day and age, Islam is the only major religion that when someone draws a cartoon about their god, that people actually riot. That is fucking insane, and it is not like that with any other religion. You're innocent right? You from the US? That's enough reason to kill you for them. If only a very small percent of Muslims were violent then things like this wouldn't happen all the time.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Did you take the time to think as why it is a violent religion? They are the most persecuted, insulted religion, I'm not justifying radicals, and by the way, no wonder so many idiots join the terrorists when you see people generalize their WHOLE religion because of few crazy extremists, there are 1 600 000 000 muslims on our planet, maybe, I dont know but lets say 10%, 160 millions are extremists, maybe 1 million are actively helping terrorists or are terrorists, and people still bash them ALL the time, many of their countries have been in wars, most of them disregarding civilians population, they are pictured everywhere as evil and dangerous. So yeah, they are touchy when it comes to their religion, and especially to their prophet, so leave them the fuck alone in general. Christianity gets bashed all the time? Ahaha are you fucking kidding me? No "we're not" (i'm atheist, but european so... my town must have something like 10 churchs for 100 000 people, I live in a christian based culture), our medias are constantly biased on the view of Islam and spread fear about them, focusing on the few extremists, how rare it is that we actually see something about middle east countries that isnt terrorism or war. So of course this isnt a valid reason for innocent to get killed, especially a state official who's death will only bring more trouble and negative attention, but they have another fucking culture, some might consider it medieval and idiotic, some might find it barbaric, misogynist (dont know if it's the right word), I just find it different, they evolved from a completely different situation, they live in a completely different situation, just like some regions of Africa, China, India, South America, global medias, just brought the weird concept of "one retard makes a movie insulting X, 10 millions protest and attack ambassy because of it". God damn it I'm so fucking tired of the ignorant point of view people project on muslim countries, they wont ever set a foot there, they probably never knew a muslim person, but they feel able to generalize 1.6 FUCKING BILLION people over CNN and shit like that, it is whats wrong with humanity, you have access to information, but you just choose to deny it, eat what people feed you, and run copy pasta that shit around on the internet. Bleh
Edit: Briefly checked you post history, you obviously are simply racist towards muslim and paranoid, you only post about that in every thread that is remotely related to middle east countries and Islam, well, guess I read you well the first time, keep up the hate man, only way to fight extremism is more extremism right?
While I agree with many of your points (especially the over generalization), modern day Islam is a violent religion sadly. Due to a variety of circumstances, Muslims are overly touchy about their faith.
The sad thing is that this wasn't really true during the time of the prophet even. The injunction to not draw an image of the prophet was made to stop people from worshiping him, not to stop people from insulting him. But the lack of education and rational thought in the islamic world, coupled with the rise of extremist leaders like the Sauds, has created an atmosphere where all things are sacred and must be defended violently.
Just the word Jihad has become a synonym for war and violence, when it really was, once, about struggle. Today someone calling a country "Jihadi" is an insult, when it should be a complement.
But yes, Muslims today are violent dicks most of the time. And its not just the vanishing minority. Like Americans, Muslims seem to be extremely bloodthirsty. Every insult, perceived or real, must be met with a show of force. It is unfortunate, but we (and culturally I am muslim) really need to get our panties unbunched and accept that people will have multiple opinions. What we (as an entire culture) need is a massive communist revolution. I am sad that communism never took hold in the middle east or we might actually be a normal culture today.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Did you take the time to think as why it is a violent religion? They are the most persecuted, insulted religion, I'm not justifying radicals, and by the way, no wonder so many idiots join the terrorists when you see people generalize their WHOLE religion because of few crazy extremists, there are 1 600 000 000 muslims on our planet, maybe, I dont know but lets say 10%, 160 millions are extremists, maybe 1 million are actively helping terrorists or are terrorists, and people still bash them ALL the time, many of their countries have been in wars, most of them disregarding civilians population, they are pictured everywhere as evil and dangerous. So yeah, they are touchy when it comes to their religion, and especially to their prophet, so leave them the fuck alone in general. Christianity gets bashed all the time? Ahaha are you fucking kidding me? No "we're not" (i'm atheist, but european so... my town must have something like 10 churchs for 100 000 people, I live in a christian based culture), our medias are constantly biased on the view of Islam and spread fear about them, focusing on the few extremists, how rare it is that we actually see something about middle east countries that isnt terrorism or war. So of course this isnt a valid reason for innocent to get killed, especially a state official who's death will only bring more trouble and negative attention, but they have another fucking culture, some might consider it medieval and idiotic, some might find it barbaric, misogynist (dont know if it's the right word), I just find it different, they evolved from a completely different situation, they live in a completely different situation, just like some regions of Africa, China, India, South America, global medias, just brought the weird concept of "one retard makes a movie insulting X, 10 millions protest and attack ambassy because of it". God damn it I'm so fucking tired of the ignorant point of view people project on muslim countries, they wont ever set a foot there, they probably never knew a muslim person, but they feel able to generalize 1.6 FUCKING BILLION people over CNN and shit like that, it is whats wrong with humanity, you have access to information, but you just choose to deny it, eat what people feed you, and run copy pasta that shit around on the internet. Bleh
The top 10 of religious prosecution is virtually all Islamic nations, they are not more proscuted then Christians not by a long shot.
Seven of the ten countries with the highest – that is, worst – grades when it comes to government restrictions on religion were OIC countries – Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Maldives, Malaysia and Indonesia. The other three were China, Burma and Eritrea.
Now add in the Islamic World is SILENT after terrorist attacks, the constant backstabbing ( teling on western news how terrible the london attacks are, followed by calling the terrorists the glorious 7 for their own audience) add in the Islamic apartheid which is present in virtually every Islamic nation and more, and you have a reason why islam is currently so despised.
Im also ''fucking tired'' of Islam's violence, oppression, and constant whining how bad they have it. They get far more freedom in the west and the rest of the world they have EVER given. Im sick of left wing nutties who pretend Islam is a normal religion with peaceful intentions, it is obvious this is not the case, and has never been the case.
Tell me one thing, why do you pretend to be from Ghana?
Pretty sure Location and place of birth are not always the same
Lets just say its work related and I love the people here ( one of the few succes stories between Christians and Muslims) love the cuisine and everything is top notch in general. Would advise any of the many south Europeans who are unemployed to consider packing up and comming here ( if they have any skills like geology / administration / any technical skill)
On September 12 2012 20:49 Souma wrote: Seems I have walked into a cave of conspiracy theories and blind folds. I apologize. I will stop posting in here.
Rest in peace, Christopher Stevens and the other victims who lost their lives this day.
Much appreciated. in the meantime you could perhaps read of the Jihad attacks off Egptian soil since you obviously missed the headlines quite a few times.
I always said taking Gaddafi down is a bad decision. In change for money and control we gained a very instabile country/region. Say what you want but Libya was stable under Gaddafi.
I'm pretty sure the only reason why Christians as a whole is less violent is because they're richer, they're more educated, and they're over all much less religious. If everybody followed their religions to the dot we'd be killing each other. That said, I hope religious could be phased out as a whole because sooner or later society will decide to take a step back because of difficult economic conditions and we have to deal with the crap all over again.
BTW violence is not the ONLY way that religion can screw society over. It's just the most significant way in the short term. Brain washing and misinformation can be more effective in the long term.
oh no all christians are violent nut jobs, boo hoo.
people who listen to one sided media will develope one sided opinions.
I don't remember the Westboro's ever killing anyone. You're fucking delusional if you think Islam and Christianity are the same right now when it comes to violence.
I'm also an Atheist so I think both of them are dumb but it's obvious Islam is violent.
Date-Country-City-Killed-Injured-Desc. 2012.08.24 Iraq Baghdad 6 12 At least six people are murdered when Islamic terrorists throw grenades into a hotel. 2012.08.24 Iraq Baghdad 3 8 Sunnis fire mortars into a group of Shiite worshippers, killing three. 2012.08.23 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 6 0 Three children and two women are among six civilian blown into bits by a Taliban bomb. 2012.08.23 Afghanistan Ahmad Khil 3 0 Hardliners kidnap and kill three local soldiers who were on their way home to visit families. 2012.08.21 Nigeria Goniri 2 0 Gunmen shouting 'Allah Akbar' burn down several buildings and shoot two villagers to death. 2012.08.21 Nigeria Borno 1 0 Islamists open fire on a rival cleric, killing him outside his mosque. 2012.08.20 Indonesia Cisalopa 4 0 Four people are murdered on accusation of heresy. 2012.08.19 Ingushetia Malgobek 7 10 A Fedayeen suicide bomber enters a funeral and slaughters at least seven mourners. 2012.08.19 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 3 8 Islamic bombers kill three people at a cemetery. 2012.08.19 Yemen Abyan 3 2 An al-Qaeda suicide bomber takes out three souls. 2012.08.19 Pakistan Haripur 0 6 Six people are attacked by fundamentalists for watching television during Eid ul Fitr. 2012.08.18 Iraq Mosul 6 0 Muslim terrorists kill six family members in their homes. 2012.08.18 Pakistan Michni 4 0 Four young men are brutally gunned down by radical Sunnis. 2012.08.18 Afghanistan Herat 4 12 Fundamentalist bombers murder four people at a crowded market. 2012.08.18 Yemen Aden 21 9 An al-Qaeda rocket attack and suicide bombing leaves over twenty people dead. 2012.08.17 Pakistan Karachi 2 18 A bus carrying Shiite students is hit by a bombing that leaves at least two dead. 2012.08.16 Pakistan Rawalpindi 25 0 Twenty-five Shiites are pulled off a passenger bus by Sunni extremists and shot and beheaded. 2012.08.16 Iraq Kirkuk 1 6 Terrorists bomb a family home, killing one member and injuring six. 2012.08.16 Iraq Daquq 6 25 A Shahid suicide bomber snuffs out the life of six other souls. 2012.08.16 Iraq Husseiniyah 7 42 Sunni car bombers take down seven Shiites. 2012.08.16 Pakistan Quetta 3 0 Three members of the Hazara religious minority are exterminated by Sunni gunmen. 2012.08.16 Iraq Baghdad 26 58 A Religion of Peace blast at a Shiite produce market leaves twenty-six dead. 2012.08.16 Pakistan Kamra 1 1 The Taliban kill at least one defender in an assault on an airport. 2012.08.16 Nigeria Maiduguri 1 0 Boko Haram shoot a community leader to death at a mosque. 2012.08.16 Iraq Zafaniya 34 57 Nearly three dozen people, mostly women and children, are slaughtered by a car bomb at an amusement park. 2012.08.15 Afghanistan Heart 0 15 Taliban bombers leave fifteen shoppers at a market bloody and maimed. 2012.08.15 Afghanistan Bagh Sara 0 9 Three grenades into a rival mosque where people are praying. 2012.08.15 Nigeria Kaduna 1 0 A Boko Haram bomb intended for a moderate imam goes off prematurely, killing a passerby. 2012.08.15 Iraq Baqubah 2 9 A Jihad car bomb leaves two dead. 2012.08.15 Iraq Qahataniya 2 0 Two brothers are murdered in their house by Sunnis for being members of a religious minority. 2012.08.15 Iraq Muqdadiya 7 25 Ramadan car bombers send seven Shiite souls to Allah. 2012.08.15 Thailand Yala 1 1 Muslim militants shoot a 47-year-old to death at a tea shop. 2012.08.15 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen take down a Shiite. 2012.08.15 Afghanistan Peshawar 6 0 Six Taliban victims are found tortured and stuffed into gunny bags. 2012.08.15 Pakistan Kurram 3 31 Three security personnel bleed out following separate bombings by Muslim radicals. 2012.08.14 Afghanistan Zaranj 36 110 Four coordinated suicide bombers slaughter three dozen people, including women and children. 2012.08.14 Dagestan Buinaksk 1 0 Islamists blow up a car, along with an occupant. 2012.08.14 Pakistan Orakzai 5 18 Five innocents are cut down by a Taliban ambush on a police patrol. 2012.08.14 Afghanistan Kunduz 12 30 A bomb planted on a motorcycle at a crowded bazaar sends a dozen shoppers to Allah. 2012.08.14 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 52-year-old plantation worker is cut down by Muslim gunmen. 2012.08.14 Indonesia Sukabumi 1 0 A cleric is murdered by members of an Islamic sect. 2012.08.14 Nigeria Damaturu 9 0 Nine people are slain by Boko Haram Islamists. 2012.08.14 Pakistan Sangar 1 2 An innocent person is murdered during an attack by Islamists. 2012.08.14 Dagestan Khasavyurt 2 1 Suspected Islamists shoot two police officers to death. 2012.08.14 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 Muslim 'insurgents' shoot a local villager several times in the head and torso. 2012.08.14 Egypt Asyut 1 0 Salafis storm a Christian-owned store and murder the owner. 2012.08.13 Nigeria Gombe 1 1 A guard is killed during a Religion of Peace assault on a Catholic church. 2012.08.13 Pakistan Charsadda 2 0 A young couple is shot to death by the woman's family for marrying without their permission. 2012.08.13 Pakistan Saro Wano 1 1 A preacher is machine-gunned in his mosque by Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.08.13 Egypt Sinai 2 0 A man and his son are shot to death by Islamists shortly after denouncing them. 2012.08.13 Afghanistan Ishkamish 5 0 Islamic hardliners blow up five locals. 2012.08.12 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Suspected Muslim terrorists murder a 55-year-old sleeping in his truck. 2012.08.12 Pakistan Miranshah 3 3 Sunni terrorists kill three local soliders with a roadside bomb. 2012.08.12 Philippines Alip 2 4 Two people at a banana plantation are mowed down by Muslim militants. 2012.08.12 Afghanistan Alishang 4 0 Four Afghans are dismantled by a Taliban roadside bomb. 2012.08.12 Iraq Jurf al-Sakhar 3 5 Mujahideen bombers take down three Iraqis. 2012.08.12 Iraq Baghdad 2 0 Two charity workers are assassinated by religious rivals. 2012.08.12 Afghanistan Panjwai 4 4 Four people are cut down by a Taliban ambush. 2012.08.12 Pakistan Mera Kachuri 2 0 A father and son are brutally tortured to death by militant Muslims. 2012.08.12 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 A radio journilist is assassinated by suspected Islamists. 2012.08.12 Iraq Suleiman Bek 8 0 Eight more Shiite teens are rounded up and murdered by Sunni gunmen. 2012.08.11 Syria Jdeidet Artouz 1 0 A journalist is murdered following threats from al-Nusra. 2012.08.11 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 41-year-old plantation worker is riddled with bullets by Muslim 'separatists'. 2012.08.11 Somalia Mogadishu 2 2 Two Somalis bleed to death from shrapnel injuries suffered during an al-Shabaab attack. 2012.08.11 Iraq Amerili 7 0 Sunnis ride into a town, single out seven young Shiites and execute them in cold blood. 2012.08.11 Pakistan Bara 4 1 Four local tribesmen are ambushed and killed by Lashkar-e-Islam militants. 2012.08.11 Pakistan Peshawar 1 0 A guard at a mosque dies preventing a shooting rampage by rivals. 2012.08.11 Afghanistan Jambaran 1 1 Religious radicals assassinate a tribal chief in his home. 2012.08.11 Afghanistan Delaram 11 0 A Taliban in police uniform surprises eleven local cops and shoots them to death. 2012.08.10 Yemen Mukalla 2 1 Two men are killed following an al-Qaeda car bomb blast. 2012.08.10 Iraq al-Muqdadiyah 3 2 Mujahideen bombers send three Iraqis to Allah. 2012.08.10 Iraq Mosul 5 70 A Shahid suicide bomber targets a Shiite mosque, slaughtering at least five worshippers. 2012.08.10 Afghanistan Musa Qala 6 1 Women and children are among six civilians torn to shreds by a Taliban bomb. 2012.08.10 Iraq Dujail 4 0 al-Qaeda gunmen take down four Sunnis. 2012.08.10 Philippines Jolo 1 0 A Christian man is gunned down by Abu Sayyaf terrorists on his way home from church. 2012.08.10 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 28-year-old man is shot off his motorbike by Muslim 'separatists.' 2012.08.10 India Moominabad 1 0 The Islamic Movement of Kashmir murders a retiree outside a mosque. 2012.08.10 Iraq Haditha 3 0 Terrorists kill three members of the same family. 2012.08.10 Philippines Datu Unsay 1 0 A local cop is slain by Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters. 2012.08.10 Nigeria Kombul 4 3 Four Christians are cut down in their homes by a Muslim raid on their village. 2012.08.10 Lebanon Akkar 1 9 Religious clashes leave one dead. 2012.08.10 Syria al-Bab 3 0 Unarmed men are thrown from a roof to shouts of 'Allah Akbar'. 2012.08.10 Afghanistan Balkh 1 0 A female school principal is murdered in her own home by suspected fundamentalists. 2012.08.09 India Baktoor 1 0 Islamic militants kill a border guard during an infiltration attempt. 2012.08.09 Pakistan Upper Dir 2 0 Two border guards are murdered during a Taliban assault. 2012.08.09 Iraq Fallujah 4 4 Children are among the casualties when Islamic 'insurgents' blow up a family home. 2012.08.09 Iraq Baghdad 2 19 Islamists bomb a marketplace, killing two patrons. 2012.08.09 Dagestan Botlikh 5 0 Islamists open fire on a group of police, killing five. 2012.08.09 Afghanistan Helmand 3 0 Three American soldiers are invited to dinner by local police, and then murdered. 2012.08.08 Iraq Baghdad 1 1 The minister of Culture is assassinated in an attack that leaves his wife badly wounded. 2012.08.08 Afghanistan Asadabad 4 3 Four people are slain by a Fedayeen suicide bomber, including an aid official. 2012.08.08 Dagestan Endireiaul 0 1 A former imam is shot after coming out against terror. 2012.08.08 Nigeria Okene 3 0 A woman is among three people gunned down by terrorists 'chanting Islamic praises'. 2012.08.08 Iraq Suwayra 13 30 Sunni car bombers massacre thirteen Shiite worshippers at a packed religious ceremony. 2012.08.08 Somalia Mogadishu 8 2 An al-Shabaab roadside bomb leaves eight dead. 2012.08.08 Syria Hourani 1 3 One person is killed during a clash between Sunni and Shia. 2012.08.08 Iraq Baiji 8 0 Islamic State of Iraq members enter a home and exterminate a family of eight. 2012.08.07 Syria Homs 16 0 Sunni militia attack a housing complex for religious minorities, killing sixteen. 2012.08.07 Afghanistan Paghman 9 3 Hardline Islamists blow up a civilian minibus, sending nine souls to Allah. 2012.08.07 Thailand Pattani 0 9 Nine school guards are injured by a Muslim bomb. 2012.08.07 Somalia Garowe 1 0 A local lawmaker is shot to death outside a mosque by al-Shabaab. 2012.08.07 Iraq Hamiat 3 6 Three children are pulled into pieces by bombs planted in two homes. 2012.08.07 Pakistan Shah Khan 2 0 Two tribal elders are murdered by suspected Islamists. 2012.08.06 Nigeria Okene 20 9 Sharia proponents enter a church and open up on members with machine-guns, slaughtering at least nineteen, including the pastor. 2012.08.06 Chechnya Khankala 3 3 Three local soldiers are killed by a Fedayeen suicide blast. 2012.08.06 Iraq Khanaqin 2 2 Sunnis bomb a Kurdish family home, killing two. 2012.08.06 Philippines Shariff Aguak 2 1 Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters kidnap, torture and execute two local soldiers. 2012.08.06 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Four Muslims murder a 55-year-old man with a shotgun. 2012.08.06 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A non-Muslim motorcycle repairman is shot in the head by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.08.06 Pakistan Jamrud 1 0 Hardliners fire into a truck, killing the driver. 2012.08.06 Iraq al-Haswa 3 13 Jihadi car bombers take out three Iraqis. 2012.08.06 Dagestan Tsuntinsky 2 1 Islamic snipers pick off two local cops. 2012.08.06 India Sendabal 1 2 A youth dies when two groups clash at a mosque over a prayer disagreement. 2012.08.06 Iraq Hillah 4 0 Four Iraqis on a minibus are torn to shreds by 'insurgent' bombers. 2012.08.06 Iraq Baghdad 2 0 Two local officials are murdered by Mujahid gunmen. 2012.08.06 Nigeria Maiduguri 1 0 A church pastor is shot to death in his home by two Islamists. 2012.08.06 Afghanistan Charsadda 1 3 The Taliban tie a landmine to a donkey that fatally injures a local cop. 2012.08.06 Syria Damascus 6 0 Sunni terrorists massacre an entire Shiite family in their home, including hanging the youngest child. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Milwat 1 0 Lashkar-e-Islam militants murder a peace committee volunteer. 2012.08.05 Nigeria Damaturu 7 9 Seven Nigerians are disassembled by a Shahid suicide car bomber. 2012.08.05 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 al-Shabaab gunmen assassinate an airport manager. 2012.08.05 Nigeria Maiduguri 4 0 Four people are shot to death in their homes by Boko Haram Islamists. 2012.08.05 Iraq Mosul 3 0 Suspected al-Qaeda open up point-blank on three local cops. 2012.08.05 Afghanistan Bamiyan 6 12 Taliban ambush and kill four Afghans and two NATO troops coming to their defense. 2012.08.05 Egypt Sinai 16 7 Gaza Jihadists cross the border and murder sixteen Egyptian border police. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Bahawalnagar 4 3 A woman and her daughters are hacked to death with an axe by her husband and sons on suspicion of 'relations with neighbors'. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Faizabad 3 12 A Religion of Peace bomb kills two children and a woman. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Gilgit 2 4 Two passengers bleed out from splinter injuries after Islamic militants toss a grenade into a bus. 2012.08.05 Philippines Maguindanao 1 11 At least one woman is killed when Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement members overrun a Catholic village. 2012.08.05 Syria Jdaidet Artuz 1 0 A Shiite film director is assassinated by Sunni terrorists. 2012.08.05 Iraq Tuz Khurmatu 4 2 Jihadi bombers send four Iraqis to Allah. 2012.08.04 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 57-year-old cop is ambushed and killed by Muslim militants. 2012.08.04 Yemen Jaar 49 37 An al-Qaeda suicide bomber blows forty-nine funeral-goers into pieces. 2012.08.04 Afghanistan Gala Joy 8 10 Eight are killed when two groups of Islamists work out their differences. 2012.08.04 Pakistan Gilgit 1 0 A 34-year-old Shiite farmer is tortured and beheaded by Wahhabi radicals. 2012.08.04 Afghanistan Ghormach 3 12 Taliban fundamentalists toss a bomb into a market, sending at least three souls to Allah. 2012.08.03 Syria Damascus 1 0 al-Nusra terrorists kidnap and execute a television presenter. 2012.08.03 Saudi Arabia Qatif 2 1 A clash between Sunni and Shia leaves two dead. 2012.08.03 Afghanistan Kunar 2 0 A woman is among two people killed in attack by Sunni hardliners. 2012.08.03 Pakistan Risalpur 11 23 Mujahideen plant a bomb on a child's tricycle at a market, which rips eleven people to shreds. 2012.08.03 Yemen Sanaa 1 0 Suspected al-Qaeda gunmen strafe a car with bullets, killing the driver. 2012.08.03 Iraq Baghdad 5 11 Drive-by Jihadis take down five Iraqis. 2012.08.03 Kenya Nairobi 1 9 An Islamist throws a grenade into a supermarket, killing at least one. 2012.08.03 Syria Damascus 21 17 Militants with al-Qaeda ties are blamed for sending mortars into a refugee camp, killing at least twenty-one. 2012.08.03 Pakistan Charsadda 0 2 Two workers are injured when Islamists throw a grenade into a humanitarian agency helping flood victims. 2012.08.03 Iraq Dhuluiyah 4 4 Four Iraqis are torn apart by an 'insurgent' roadside bomb. 2012.08.03 Afghanistan Daulatzai 0 23 Two dozen people are injured when Mujahideen set off a bomb at a rival mosque during prayers. 2012.08.02 Pakistan Akhorwal 1 0 Tehreek-e-Taliban gunmen murder a local man. 2012.08.02 India Kasargod 1 0 A Hindu leader is shot to death by Muslim militants. 2012.08.02 Jordan Baoun 1 0 A 22-year-old divorced woman is stabbed to death by her brother for not submitting to his control. 2012.08.02 Dagestan Kizilyurt 1 1 One police officer is dead and another loses a leg to Religion of Peace attacks. 2012.08.02 Iraq Kirkuk 4 0 Muslim terrorists enter a home and cut the throats of a father, mother and two daughters. 2012.08.02 Iraq Baghdad 9 32 Women are among the casualties when Sunnis bomb a market in a Shiite neighborhood. 2012.08.02 Iraq Balad 3 0 Three Iraqis are blown to bits by an 'insurgent' bomb. 2012.08.02 Iraq Tikrit 4 0 Four policemen are machine-gunned at close range by Sunni terrorists. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Lagharai Thal 1 0 Religious radicals gun down a school teacher. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Mochiwala 1 1 A woman is shot to death by her brother on suspicion of illicit relations. 2012.08.01 Pal. Auth. Tulkarm 1 0 A Palestinian man stabs his teenage daughter to death in a suspected honor killing. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Lahore 0 23 Twenty-three casualties result from Islamists bombing a fruit market. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Hyderabad 1 0 A young woman is shot to death by her brother for marrying of her own free will. 2012.08.01 Yemen Abyan 5 0 Five people die during an al-Qaeda grenade and gunfire attack. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Tandlianwala 2 0 A woman is strangled by her brother over 'loose morals'. 2012.08.01 Somalia Mogadishu 6 0 Six guards are taken apart by two Fedayeen suicide bombers. 2012.08.01 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 A comedian is shot to death after mocking Islamists on stage. 2012.08.01 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 At least one other person is killed when two suicide bombers detonate. 2012.08.01 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim gunmen murder a local official on his way home from work. 2012.08.01 Afghanistan Jalrez 4 0 Four civilians are kidnapped and murdered by the Taliban. 2012.07.31 Pakistan Karachi 0 11 Eleven nurses fall ill after hospital food is poisoned to punish Ramadan eaters. 2012.07.31 Iraq Mosul 1 3 A man is killed, and his baby, mother and wife injured in their own home by Muslim terrorists. 2012.07.31 Thailand Pattani 2 4 Islamic militants fire into a tea shop, killing two patrons. 2012.07.31 Iraq Baghdad 7 21 A car bombing outside a restaurant leaves seven dead. 2012.07.31 Yemen Jaar 2 3 Ansar al-Sharia gunmen on motorcycles open fire on a police station, killing two. 2012.07.31 Syria Aleppo 40 0 Approximately forty 'loyalists' are beaten and executed to chants of 'Allah Akbar'. 2012.07.31 Somalia Mogadishu 1 9 An Islamist bomb outside a soft drink factory leaves one dead. 2012.07.31 Iraq Baghdad 15 35 Jihadis bomb a passport office, killing fifteen innocent people waiting in line. 2012.07.31 Iraq Saqlawiyah 2 2 Two family members are killed by an 'insurgent' roadside bomb. 2012.07.30 Nigeria Sokoto 1 0 Three Boko Haram gunmen shoot a shoe-shine worker to death. 2012.07.30 Nigeria Sokoto 2 30 Fedayeen suicide car bombers take down a hairdresser and a cop. 2012.07.30 Pakistan Mardan 4 0 Terrorists shoot four farm workers to death. 2012.07.30 Kenya Mandera 1 0 al-Shabaab gunmen spray the car of a mobile phone dealer with bullets, killing the driver. 2012.07.30 Afghanistan Tarinkot 5 0 Five civilians at a mosque are sent straight to Allah by Religion of Peace bombers. 2012.07.29 Iraq Fallujah 7 9 Seven local cops are bombed or shot to death by Ramadan terrorists. 2012.07.29 Pakistan Mansehra 0 2 Fundamentalists bomb a CD shop selling music and a primary school for girls. 2012.07.29 Iraq Muqdadiya 4 13 Jihadi bombers take down four civilians. 2012.07.29 Yemen Radah 1 0 A 14-year-old boy is cut to pieces by an al-Qaeda bomb. 2012.07.29 Mali Aguelhok 2 0 A married couple is buried up to their necks and stoned to death for adultery. 2012.07.29 Afghanistan Chak 1 1 A man is killed and his young so injured in an ambush by Sunni fundamentalists. 2012.07.29 Nigeria Kano 2 2 An air force officer is ambushed and killed by Muslim gunmen along with his aide. 2012.07.29 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 45-year-old man is shot three times in the head by Islamic terrorists. 2012.07.29 Nigeria Kano 2 0 Two Christians are gunned down outside their homes by Boko Haram Islamists. 2012.07.29 Kenya Mandera 1 0 Islamists gun down a driver for a telephone company. 2012.07.28 Yemen Sanaa 1 0 al-Qaeda radicals hand a 12-year-old a packaged bomb, which is then detonated remotely, disassembling the child. 2012.07.28 Thailand Pattani 4 2 Four Thai soldiers are brutally shot to death at close range by Muslim terrorists. 2012.07.28 India Anantnag 2 4 Two tourists are killed when Muslim militants toss a hand grenade at a taxi. 2012.07.28 Iraq Samarrah 5 0 Mujahideen shoot five women to death in their own home. 2012.07.28 Thailand Yala 1 0 A Muslim 'separatist' assassinates a rival Muslim in a mosque. 2012.07.28 Thailand Pattani 2 0 A teenager is among two Buddhists murdered by Muslim 'separatists.' 2012.07.27 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 66-year-old man is gunned down in a Muslim ambush. 2012.07.27 Dagestan Makhachkala 3 0 Three people are killed when Islamic extremists set off a car bomb. 2012.07.27 Thailand Pattani 1 1 Militant Muslims fire on a young married couple, killing the 18-year-old woman. 2012.07.27 Nigeria Maiduguri 7 0 Suspected Boko Haram barge into four homes and murder seven residents. 2012.07.27 Somalia Baidoa 4 3 Four local soldiers are killed by an al-Shabaab bomb blast. 2012.07.27 Pakistan Quetta 1 0 Wahhabi terrorists torture a Shiite man with knives and then kill him. 2012.07.27 Dagestan Makhachkala 1 0 A police officer is shot to death in his car by Islamic militants. 2012.07.27 Pakistan Mardan 6 0 Jihadists shoot six people to death in separate attacks. 2012.07.26 Philippines Sumisip 5 22 Abu Sayyaf terrorists attack a Christian farming village, killing at least five. 2012.07.26 Pakistan Akka Khel 3 4 Three people outside a mosque are blown to bits by Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.26 Philippines Sumisip 10 17 An Abu Sayyaf clash with local troops responding to a prior massacre leaves ten dead. 2012.07.26 Nigeria Bauchi 3 1 Suspected Islamists ambush a group of policemen, killing three. 2012.07.26 Thailand Yala 1 0 Muslim militants shoot a local several times in the torso. 2012.07.26 Pakistan Khar 15 23 Religion of Peace militants detonate a shrapnel bomb at a crowded market which kills fifteen people, including those dying later in the hospital. 2012.07.26 Iraq Hadid 11 0 Eleven security personnel are killed in an al-Qaeda ambush. 2012.07.26 Egypt Shubra el Khayma 0 1 A Christian doctor is brutally blinded by Salafist Muslims after asking them to stop firing weapons in celebration. 2012.07.26 Thailand Yala 2 0 Two villagers are machine-gunned by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.07.25 Syria Homs 9 0 News breaks of nine Alawite bus passengers are split off from the rest and decapitated by Sunnis. 2012.07.25 Jordan Jerash 1 0 An honor killer stabs his sister and then runs over her several times with a truck after suspecting her of 'immoral behavior'. 2012.07.25 Pakistan Dabori 3 0 Three defenders are killed during a Taliban ambush of a local post. 2012.07.25 Pakistan Bara 1 0 Islamists kidnap a 70-year-old man, slit his throat and then spray him with bullets. 2012.07.25 Iraq Diyala 4 12 Four local cops are killed by Muslim terrorists. 2012.07.25 Nigeria Borno 3 0 Three people are killed in an Islamist ambush. 2012.07.25 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 3 Sharia fanatics attack an Indian-owned business and murder the owners. 2012.07.25 Iraq Ad-Dawr 5 4 Four children under the age of 10 are dismantled along with their mother by Religion of Peace bombers. 2012.07.25 Thailand Yala 5 1 Muslim 'separatists' kill five police officers with a bomb hidden in a car. 2012.07.25 Pakistan Gulbehar 1 0 A 14-year-old girl is murdered when Lashkar e Jhangvi gunmen attack a Shia ceremony. 2012.07.24 Nigeria Gwamaja 1 0 A cleric is gunned down by Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.24 Afghanistan Ghor 7 0 Seven children are torn to shreds by a Taliban bomb. 2012.07.24 Iraq Kirkuk 1 2 A 10-year-old girl is pulled into pieces by an 'insurgent' bomb. 2012.07.24 Nigeria Kano 1 0 A high-school teacher is shot to death by Boko Haram. 2012.07.24 Pakistan Darra Adamkhel 0 7 A Taliban 'toy bomb' injures seven children. 2012.07.24 Afghanistan Parwan 3 0 Two Afghans and an American engineer are machine-gunned by Sunni fundamentalists. 2012.07.24 Iraq Tuz Khormato 6 0 al-Qaeda is suspected in the murder of six Kurdish intelligence officers. 2012.07.24 Iraq Baqubah 3 29 Three passersby are killed when terrorists blow up a parked bus. 2012.07.24 Nigeria Kano 2 0 A married couple are murdered by pro-Sharia gunmen. 2012.07.24 Pakistan Jamrud 1 1 Islamic militants fire on a truck, killing the driver. 2012.07.23 Iraq Diwaniya 5 32 al-Qaeda 'insurgents' car bomb a vegetable market, killing at least five patrons. 2012.07.23 Iraq Udhaim 13 23 Thirteen Iraqis are mowed down at point blank range by al-Qaeda gunmen. 2012.07.23 Iraq Baquban 3 7 Jihadis exterminate three Iraqis with a roadside bomb. 2012.07.23 Iraq Baghdad 6 24 Six Shiites are blown to bits by Sunni bombers while relaxing at a cafe. 2012.07.23 Nigeria Bauchi 1 10 Sharia advocates set off a bomb near a local bar, killing a 6-year-old boy. 2012.07.23 Nigeria Bulumkutu 3 0 Three men are assassinated by suspected Islamists in separate attacks. 2012.07.23 Nigeria Maiduguri 5 0 Five people lose their lives to Boko Haram gunmen. 2012.07.23 Iraq Sadr City 21 73 Sunni bombers strike at the heart of a Shiite slum, slaughtering at least twenty-one with two car bombs. 2012.07.23 Iraq Baghdad 17 96 An additional seventeen Iraqis are reported dead from small arms attacks and bombings claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq. 2012.07.23 Iraq Kirkuk 12 47 At least a dozen people are shot or blown up by a series of al-Qaeda attacks. 2012.07.23 Iraq Mosul 9 0 Holy Warriors take down nine locals in armed attacks. 2012.07.23 Iraq Taji 42 48 Forty-two people are killed in a series of al-Qaeda bombings outside a housing complex. 2012.07.23 Iraq Dhuluiya 16 4 Sixteen Iraqis are taken out by a Mujahideen grenade and shooting attack. 2012.07.22 Afghanistan Helmand 2 0 A father shoots his two daughters to death for leaving home with a man. 2012.07.22 Iraq Baghdad 1 0 The bodyguard of a Shiite politician is gunned down by suspected Sunni shooters. 2012.07.22 Iraq Mahmudiya 11 38 Three Ramadan bombs leave eleven Iraqis dead. 2012.07.22 Iraq Madaen 15 60 Sunni bombers take out fifteen Shia shoppers at a packed market. 2012.07.22 Iraq Najaf 4 28 A busy trading street is the target of Mujahideen bomber, who kill four innocents. 2012.07.22 Saudi Arabia Riyadh 1 0 Extremists assassinate a government official with a bomb. 2012.07.22 Afghanistan Jalrez 5 0 Five civilians are captured by the Taliban, then bound and executed. 2012.07.22 Syria Damascus 4 0 The 'Islamic Brigade' stops a car carrying a Christian family, force them out and then massacre them, including the two children. 2012.07.22 Iraq Najaf 0 23 A Sunni attempt to car bomb a Shia shrine leaves two dozen injured. 2012.07.22 Pakistan Hyderabad 2 0 Two Christians are shot to death by Muslim radicals. 2012.07.22 Philippines Tumahubong 0 4 There are four casualties when suspected Abu Sayaaf gunmen ambush a group of priests. 2012.07.22 Somalia Lower Shabelle 3 0 Three 'spies' are executed by al-Shabaab. 2012.07.22 Afghanistan Kabul 3 2 A terrorist disguised in uniform turns his weapon on civilian workers, killing three. 2012.07.21 Ingushetia Magas 2 3 Two security personnel die in a grenade and small arms ambush on their vehicle. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Gadap 1 0 A medical worker is assassinated by the Taliban for assisting an anti-polio drive. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Spin Thall 12 8 Eight young children are among a dozen people disassembled by a Fedayeen suicide bomber. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Dhog Darra 3 0 Taliban bombers take down three civilians in a pick-up truck. 2012.07.21 Tajikistan Khorog 1 0 A government official is stabbed to death by an Islamic radical. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Dir Bala 4 7 Fundamentalists bomb a peace committee bus, killing four riders. 2012.07.20 India Jayapur 4 0 Four Hindu youth are hacked to death by a Muslim mob. 2012.07.20 Pakistan Shahdara 1 0 A young woman is beaten and then shot by her brothers for not heeding their warning about wearing pants. 2012.07.20 India Kupwara 1 0 Muslim terrorists murder a local soldier. 2012.07.20 Pakistan Shalozan 1 1 Islamic militants fire a rocket into a populated area, killing a 16-year-old girl and injuring her brother. 2012.07.20 Iraq Kadhimiya 2 0 Two brothers are shot to death by 'insurgents'. 2012.07.20 Afghanistan Sarab 5 0 All five Afghans riding in a car are blown to bits by fundamentalist bombers. 2012.07.19 Yemen Aden 1 0 A local official is killed by an Ansar al-Sharia car bomb. 2012.07.19 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim 'separatists' pursue 43-year-old man and shoot him. 2012.07.19 Afghanistan Faryab 8 6 A woman and child are among eight civilians ripped to pieces by a Taliban bomb. 2012.07.19 Egypt Sheikh Zweid 2 0 Bearded Islamists in robes machine-gun two local soldiers along a city street at point blank range. 2012.07.19 Russia Kazan 1 1 Two advocates of peaceful Islam are targeted by radicals. One is shot to death and the other injured in a car bomb. 2012.07.19 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim terrorists shoot a 25-year-old man to death. 2012.07.19 Thailand Yala 1 3 Two bombings by Islamic 'separatists' leave one person dead. 2012.07.19 Pakistan Bajaur 3 0 Three people are kidnapped, tortured and executed by Islamic radicals. 2012.07.19 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 0 Two traders at a market are murdered in cold blood by Boko Haram gunmen. 2012.07.19 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A 52-year-old leader of the Ahamdi minority is shot in the head by defenders of mainstream Islam. 2012.07.19 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Sipah-e-Sahab terrorists gun down a 50-year-old Shiite. 2012.07.19 Yemen Bayda 1 0 A security officer is picked off by two al-Qaeda gunmen. 2012.07.18 India Kerala 1 2 Campus Islamists stab three Hindu students, one of whom bleeds to death. 2012.07.18 Pakistan Spai 14 0 Eight members of one family, including women and young children, are disassembled along with six others by a bus bomb attack on Shia pilgrims deemed 'enemies of Islam.' 2012.07.18 Somalia Damascus 2 2 A suicide bomber kills two officials. 2012.07.18 Lebanon Tripoli 1 8 Sunni snipers fire into an Alawite neighborhood, taking out a child. 2012.07.18 Pal. Auth. al-Shati 1 0 A 17-year-old girl is strangled by her father and brother over a moral issue. 2012.07.18 Pakistan Jahanian 2 0 Two teen lovers are tortured and shot for having eloped without the permission of the girl's conservative family. 2012.07.18 Bulgaria Burgas 7 30 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates on a bus carrying Israeli tourists, killing seven and injuring dozens more. 2012.07.18 Iraq Mosul 11 3 A woman and her son sitting in their house are among eleven people murdered by terrorists. 2012.07.17 Nigeria Jos 1 0 A 10-year-old boy dies from splinter injuries from a Boko Haram RPG attack on his home. 2012.07.17 Pakistan Karachi 0 2 The Taliban are suspected of firing on a polio vaccination team trying to treat children. 2012.07.17 Afghanistan Washer 9 7 Sunni radicals stage an ambush that leaves nine Afghans dead. 2012.07.17 Thailand Narathiwat 3 5 Islamic militants open up on a group of local soldiers, killing a bystander as well. 2012.07.16 Somalia Mogadishu 7 5 Proponents of Sharia detonate a bomb under a car that decapitates the driver and leaves six others dead. 2012.07.16 Pakistan Sultanabad 1 0 A prayer leader is shot to death by rivals. 2012.07.16 Yemen Taez 4 4 A 5-year-old girl and her father are among four people gunned down in a brutal attack. 2012.07.16 Afghanistan Khan Abad 1 8 An innocent person is killed when Islamic extremists blow up a car. 2012.07.16 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 3 0 Three civilians are taken down by Taliban bombers. 2012.07.16 Pakistan Bannu 3 3 Taliban in burqas shoot three guards to death at a police station. 2012.07.16 Kenya Lagdera 1 1 A local cop dies during an al-Shabaab ambush. 2012.07.16 Iraq Mosul 2 0 'Insurgents' kill two local cops with a bomb. 2012.07.15 Pakistan Sheehan 4 1 Three children between the ages of 2 and 9 are torn apart in their home by shrapnel from a Lashkar e-Islam mortar shell. 2012.07.15 Pakistan Mian Kalay Jandol 1 0 A dozen Islamists assault a police post, killing the lone defender. 2012.07.15 Syria Damascus 2 0 The al-Nusra terror group claims two killings, one of which was of a barber. 2012.07.15 Iraq Diyala 3 10 A 3-year-old girl is among three Iraqis taken down by Mujahideen attacks. 2012.07.15 India Kerala 1 0 A Hindu activist is attacked and murdered by Muslim radicals. 2012.07.14 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Lashkar Jhangvi kidnap, torture and murder a 16-year-old Shiite. 2012.07.14 Iraq Mosul 4 0 Two civilians are among four Iraqis shot to death at a checkpoint by Mujahideen. 2012.07.14 Dagestan Makhachkala 2 0 Two local cops are gunned down by suspected Islamists. 2012.07.14 Pakistan Haripur 1 0 A 21-year-old mother is beaten to death by her conservative brother on suspicion of an affair. 2012.07.14 Somalia Mogadishu 1 3 Militant Islamists kill a civilian with a roadside bomb. 2012.07.14 Iraq Rashidiyah 5 2 Sunni militants machine-gun five local cops at point-blank range. 2012.07.14 Afghanistan Aybak 23 60 A Fedayeen suicide bomber detonates at a packed wedding, sending nearly two dozen souls to Allah. 2012.07.14 Syria Muhrada 4 0 Two woman and a child are among four people torn to shreds by a Shahid suicide bomber. 2012.07.14 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 41-year-old man is gunned down in a Muslim drive-by. 2012.07.14 Pakistan Baddar 3 5 Tehreek-e-Taliban militants murder three people. 2012.07.13 Afghanistan Laghman 1 2 A women's ministry official bleeds out following a Taliban bombing of her family vehicle. 2012.07.13 India Baghpat 0 2 Two policemen are beaten by an enraged mob of Muslims after arresting two clerics. 2012.07.13 Indonesia Bogor 0 4 A Sunni mob attacks Ahmadi minorities with knives and machetes. 2012.07.13 Iraq Baghdad 1 1 A woman is killed in her own home by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.07.13 Pakistan Quetta 7 22 Islamic 'extremists' are suspected in a blast at a rally that leaves seven dead, including a 7-year-old girl. 2012.07.13 Nigeria Maiduguri 5 6 A Boko Haram suicide bomber murders five bystanders outside a mosque. 2012.07.13 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A Shiite father of three is murdered by Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen. 2012.07.12 Pakistan Lahore 10 8 Tehreek-e-Taliban fundamentalists enter a barracks and shoot ten sleeping policemen to death. 2012.07.12 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 40-year-old man is shot six times in the torso by Islamic 'separatists'. 2012.07.12 Iraq Mosul 5 3 Terrorists take down five Iraqis. 2012.07.12 Pakistan Jaffarabad 1 0 A Hindu is shot to death by drive-by Jihadis. 2012.07.12 Pakistan Quetta 1 0 A Shiite boy is shot to death by Wahhabis. 2012.07.11 Afghanistan Zhari 4 2 Taliban infiltrators shoot four local cops to death in their sleep. 2012.07.11 Pakistan Karachi 2 0 A man and his 2-year-old son are gunned down by sectarian Jihadis. 2012.07.11 Pakistan Mian Gundi 2 0 A prayer leader is among two Shiites kidnapped and beheaded by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Sunnis. 2012.07.11 Syria Aleppo 17 0 Seventeen Palestinians are kidnapped and murdered by Sunni terrorists. 2012.07.11 Yemen Sanaa 22 24 An al-Qaeda suicide bomber targets a police academy, slaughtering about two dozen young aspirants. 2012.07.11 Philippines Tumahubong 6 27 Six rubber plantation workers are shredded by Abu Sayyaf bombers while on their way to work. 2012.07.11 Pakistan Karachi 1 23 One person is killed when terrorists attempt to blow up a bus carrying space agency employees. 2012.07.10 Pakistan Shamsabad 1 0 A teacher is shot dead on the way to work on the same day that Taliban militants blow up two schools. 2012.07.10 Iraq Ramadi 4 4 A shocking attack and brutal by Mujahideen on a police checkpoint leaves four officers dead. 2012.07.10 Philippines Sumisip 0 8 An Abu Sayyaf bomb injures eight local soldiers. 2012.07.10 Iraq Baghdad 3 14 Sunnis bomb a bus carrying Shiites, killing three and injuring fourteen. 2012.07.09 Pakistan Gujrat 8 4 Hardline Islamists open fire on a group of security personnel, killing eight. 2012.07.09 India Gaziabad 1 0 A Hindu man is the victim of a targeted killing by Muslims. 2012.07.09 Iraq Samarrah 2 0 Two Iraqis are shot to death by al-Qaeda. 2012.07.09 Saudi Arabia Awamiya 2 1 Sunni cops are accused of firing randomly at Shiites, killing two. 2012.07.09 Iraq Mosul 7 7 Seven Iraqis are murdered by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.07.09 Afghanistan Kandahar 5 30 Two children are among five people pulled into pieces by three Shahid suicide bombers. 2012.07.08 Nigeria Barkin-Ladi 23 1 Two politicians are among twenty-three Christians, including women and children, slaughtered by Muslims during a funeral for other victims of Islamic terror. 2012.07.08 Afghanistan Arghistan 18 30 Eighteen civilians, including women and children, are torn to shreds by Taliban bombers. 2012.07.08 Pakistan Kot Ghulam 1 0 A Christian laborer is pulled out of his truck and shot point-blank by a Muslim. 2012.07.08 Afghanistan Musa Qala 5 0 Sunni fundamentalists massacre five local cops with a roadside bomb. 2012.07.07 Nigeria Kushen 80 300 Muslim terrorists attack twelve Christian villages and massacre eighty innocents, including fifty taking refuge in a church. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Peshawar 1 3 A policeman bleeds to death from shrapnel injuries following a Religion of Peace bombing. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Karachi 2 1 Two brothers are murdered by sectarian Jihadis. 2012.07.07 Afghanistan Chora 6 1 Three children are among six civilians blown to bits by Sunni hardliners. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Buggan 1 0 Sunni hardliners assassinate a pro-government tribal leader. 2012.07.07 Afghanistan Farah 1 26 A Taliban rocket attack on a residence leaves one dead. 2012.07.07 Afghanistan Gereshk 1 1 A child is dismantled by a Taliban bomb. 2012.07.07 Iraq Ramadi 10 38 A suicide bomber detonates in the house of a family member, killing ten relatives, most of whom were women. 2012.07.07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 3 Muslim 'separatists' set off a bomb that kills a local soldier and leaves three others badly wounded. 2012.07.07 India Pampore 1 1 Islamic militants gun down a local security officer. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Tiyarza 4 3 Four local police officers are blown to bits by Islamic militia. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Sharifabad 1 0 A 55-year-odl Shiite is brought down by Sunni snipers. 2012.07.07 Kosovo Pristina 2 0 A middle-aged Christian couple is found shot to death in their home in what is presumed to be a targeted attack by members of the Muslim majority. 2012.07.07 Somalia Shabelle 4 3 al-Shabaab militants open fire on a passenger bus, killing at least four. 2012.07.06 Iraq Hit 3 6 Terrorists kill three policemen outside a mosque. 2012.07.06 Iraq Anbar 5 9 An entire family of four, including two children, bleed to death following a suicide attack on their home. 2012.07.06 Pakistan Sariab 1 0 A religious scholar is assassinated by devout rivals. 2012.07.06 Egypt Giza 0 4 Fundamentalists enter a pool hall and shoot four people after telling them to stop playing and start praying. 2012.07.05 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 0 Sharia advocates slit the throats of two people. 2012.07.05 Iraq Mosul 5 20 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates inside a barber shop, sending at least five others to Allah. 2012.07.05 Iraq Baqubah 1 2 An al-Qaeda bomb leaves one person dead. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Jamrud 1 0 A young women's rights activist is gunned down in a targeted attack. 2012.07.04 Iraq Mosul 3 1 A woman is among three Iraqis taken down by Mujahideen bombers. 2012.07.04 Nigeria Borno 2 0 Two employees at a housing complex are chased down and murdered by Boko Haram radicals. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Kuchlak 3 0 Lashkar-e-Jhangvi gunmen murder three Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.04 Kenya Mandera 1 0 Somali militants shoot a 16-year-old girl several times in the chest. 2012.07.04 Afghanistan Ghazni 3 0 An honor killer beheads his ex-wife and two children. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Pasrur 2 3 A pregnant woman and her baby are shot to death by Wahhabis because they were Shia. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Bahawalpur 1 0 A mentally-ill man is tortured, doused with petrol and burned alive by a mob angered over reports that he burned a Quran. 2012.07.04 Afghanistan Marjeh 1 3 A woman is taken out by a Taliban roadside bomb. 2012.07.04 Iraq Baghdad 3 0 Terrorists assassinate three people in separate attacks. 2012.07.04 Iraq Zubaidiyah 8 37 One child and two women are among eight dead when Sunnis detonate a bomb at a Shiite market. 2012.07.03 Iraq Diwaniya 40 75 Sunnis set off a powerful bomb near a Shiite mosque, taking down at least forty Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.03 Pakistan Bara Kamangra 1 4 Islamic militants kill one person with a remote-controlled bomb. 2012.07.03 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 49-year-old Buddhist is dismantled by Muslim bombers while on his way home. 2012.07.03 India Pulwama 2 0 Muslim terrorists shoot an off-duty policeman and a traffic cop to death at close range. 2012.07.03 Iraq Karbalah 8 54 Eight Shiite worshippers are sent straight to Allah by Sunni bombers at a vegetable market. 2012.07.03 Iraq Taji 3 15 Muslim bombers kill three Iraqis. 2012.07.02 Yemen Sanaa 1 0 A Yemeni is killed by a suspected al-Qaeda car bomb. 2012.07.02 Egypt Suez 1 0 A 20-year-old engineering student is stabbed to death by religious police for walking with his girlfriend. 2012.07.02 Afghanistan Kandahar 7 23 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates near the entrance of a university, killing seven students and staff. 2012.07.02 Pakistan Lalu Ali 2 0 Sipah-e-Sahaba cadres capture and behead two brothers for being Shia. 2012.07.02 Iraq Baghdad 1 8 Jihadi bombers take out a traffic cop. 2012.07.01 Iraq Baghdad 3 4 Terrorists kill three people including a judge. 2012.07.01 Afghanistan Helmand 3 0 A Taliban disguised in police uniform murders three British soldiers. 2012.07.01 Nigeria Maiduguri 9 0 Nine Christian construction workers have their throats cut by Islamists in a 'gruesome' killing. 2012.07.01 Kenya Garissa 18 66 Muslims throw grenades into two churches and then shoot fleeing Christians. Some eighteen die in the massacre, including three children.. 2012.07.01 Afghanistan Ghazni 5 11 Five women and children are ripped apart when the Taliban bomb their bus. 2012.07.01 Pakistan Faisalabad 0 1 A man is beaten and 'severely tortured' by a mob for 'defaming' prophet Muhammad with remarks. 2012.07.01 Dagestan Khasavyurt 1 0 An off-duty cop is gunned down in a Muslim drive-by.
On September 12 2012 20:49 Souma wrote: Seems I have walked into a cave of conspiracy theories and blind folds. I apologize. I will stop posting in here.
Rest in peace, Christopher Stevens and the other victims who lost their lives this day.
Much appreciated. in the meantime you could perhaps read of the Jihad attacks off Egptian soil since you obviously missed the headlines quite a few times.
I'm sorry, I just have to address this. I think you linked the wrong articles trying to prove how crazy Egypt is. Those are articles stating how the Egyptian soldiers/policemen were killed by unknown-possibly-Islamist-militants. Where's the articles about Egyptians killing Jews and Westerners?
It seems like most people here do not know much about politics in Libya or the Arab Spring, so they derail the thread by talking about how evil religion is.
On September 12 2012 21:00 ddrddrddrddr wrote: I'm pretty sure the only reason why Christians as a whole is less violent is because they're richer, they're more educated, and they're over all much less religious. If everybody followed their religions to the dot we'd be killing each other. That said, I hope religious could be phased out as a whole because sooner or later society will decide to take a step back because of difficult economic conditions and we have to deal with the crap all over again.
BTW violence is not the ONLY way that religion can screw society over. It's just the most significant way in the short term. Brain washing and misinformation can be more effective in the long term.
Explain me the lack of terrorism is dirt poor India. Explain me the lack of christian terrorism in Chrisitan sub-sahara Africa.
the 9-11 culprits were well edcuated. so are most terrorists.
One piece of the Krueger-Maleckova evidence involves 129 members of Hezbollah who died in action, mostly against Israel, from 1982 to 1994. Hezbollah is now designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Biographical information from the Hezbollah newspaper al-Ahd indicates that the fighters who died were, on average, more educated and less impoverished than the Lebanese population of comparable age and regional origin.
On September 12 2012 20:49 Souma wrote: Seems I have walked into a cave of conspiracy theories and blind folds. I apologize. I will stop posting in here.
Rest in peace, Christopher Stevens and the other victims who lost their lives this day.
Much appreciated. in the meantime you could perhaps read of the Jihad attacks off Egptian soil since you obviously missed the headlines quite a few times.
I'm sorry, I just have to address this. I think you linked the wrong articles trying to prove how crazy Egypt is. Those are articles stating how the Egyptian soldiers/policemen were killed by unknown-possibly-Islamist-militants. Where's the articles about Egyptians killing Jews and Westerners?
Islam is exactly like Christianity, it's just lagging behind 500 years. Five centuries ago if you dissed Jesus or pointed out the fact that selling forgiveness to line the pockets of fat bishops was fucking ridiculous, you got the tongs and the pyre.
Organized religion is organized crime and the opposite of faith. I just wish Jesus would come back one day in a Voltron suit sidekicked by Mohammad the bio-lizard so they can annihilate these puppet masters and their nasty schemes.
oh no all christians are violent nut jobs, boo hoo.
people who listen to one sided media will develope one sided opinions.
I don't remember the Westboro's ever killing anyone. You're fucking delusional if you think Islam and Christianity are the same right now when it comes to violence.
I'm also an Atheist so I think both of them are dumb but it's obvious Islam is violent.
Date-Country-City-Killed-Injured-Desc. 2012.08.24 Iraq Baghdad 6 12 At least six people are murdered when Islamic terrorists throw grenades into a hotel. 2012.08.24 Iraq Baghdad 3 8 Sunnis fire mortars into a group of Shiite worshippers, killing three. 2012.08.23 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 6 0 Three children and two women are among six civilian blown into bits by a Taliban bomb. 2012.08.23 Afghanistan Ahmad Khil 3 0 Hardliners kidnap and kill three local soldiers who were on their way home to visit families. 2012.08.21 Nigeria Goniri 2 0 Gunmen shouting 'Allah Akbar' burn down several buildings and shoot two villagers to death. 2012.08.21 Nigeria Borno 1 0 Islamists open fire on a rival cleric, killing him outside his mosque. 2012.08.20 Indonesia Cisalopa 4 0 Four people are murdered on accusation of heresy. 2012.08.19 Ingushetia Malgobek 7 10 A Fedayeen suicide bomber enters a funeral and slaughters at least seven mourners. 2012.08.19 Afghanistan Lashkar Gah 3 8 Islamic bombers kill three people at a cemetery. 2012.08.19 Yemen Abyan 3 2 An al-Qaeda suicide bomber takes out three souls. 2012.08.19 Pakistan Haripur 0 6 Six people are attacked by fundamentalists for watching television during Eid ul Fitr. 2012.08.18 Iraq Mosul 6 0 Muslim terrorists kill six family members in their homes. 2012.08.18 Pakistan Michni 4 0 Four young men are brutally gunned down by radical Sunnis. 2012.08.18 Afghanistan Herat 4 12 Fundamentalist bombers murder four people at a crowded market. 2012.08.18 Yemen Aden 21 9 An al-Qaeda rocket attack and suicide bombing leaves over twenty people dead. 2012.08.17 Pakistan Karachi 2 18 A bus carrying Shiite students is hit by a bombing that leaves at least two dead. 2012.08.16 Pakistan Rawalpindi 25 0 Twenty-five Shiites are pulled off a passenger bus by Sunni extremists and shot and beheaded. 2012.08.16 Iraq Kirkuk 1 6 Terrorists bomb a family home, killing one member and injuring six. 2012.08.16 Iraq Daquq 6 25 A Shahid suicide bomber snuffs out the life of six other souls. 2012.08.16 Iraq Husseiniyah 7 42 Sunni car bombers take down seven Shiites. 2012.08.16 Pakistan Quetta 3 0 Three members of the Hazara religious minority are exterminated by Sunni gunmen. 2012.08.16 Iraq Baghdad 26 58 A Religion of Peace blast at a Shiite produce market leaves twenty-six dead. 2012.08.16 Pakistan Kamra 1 1 The Taliban kill at least one defender in an assault on an airport. 2012.08.16 Nigeria Maiduguri 1 0 Boko Haram shoot a community leader to death at a mosque. 2012.08.16 Iraq Zafaniya 34 57 Nearly three dozen people, mostly women and children, are slaughtered by a car bomb at an amusement park. 2012.08.15 Afghanistan Heart 0 15 Taliban bombers leave fifteen shoppers at a market bloody and maimed. 2012.08.15 Afghanistan Bagh Sara 0 9 Three grenades into a rival mosque where people are praying. 2012.08.15 Nigeria Kaduna 1 0 A Boko Haram bomb intended for a moderate imam goes off prematurely, killing a passerby. 2012.08.15 Iraq Baqubah 2 9 A Jihad car bomb leaves two dead. 2012.08.15 Iraq Qahataniya 2 0 Two brothers are murdered in their house by Sunnis for being members of a religious minority. 2012.08.15 Iraq Muqdadiya 7 25 Ramadan car bombers send seven Shiite souls to Allah. 2012.08.15 Thailand Yala 1 1 Muslim militants shoot a 47-year-old to death at a tea shop. 2012.08.15 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen take down a Shiite. 2012.08.15 Afghanistan Peshawar 6 0 Six Taliban victims are found tortured and stuffed into gunny bags. 2012.08.15 Pakistan Kurram 3 31 Three security personnel bleed out following separate bombings by Muslim radicals. 2012.08.14 Afghanistan Zaranj 36 110 Four coordinated suicide bombers slaughter three dozen people, including women and children. 2012.08.14 Dagestan Buinaksk 1 0 Islamists blow up a car, along with an occupant. 2012.08.14 Pakistan Orakzai 5 18 Five innocents are cut down by a Taliban ambush on a police patrol. 2012.08.14 Afghanistan Kunduz 12 30 A bomb planted on a motorcycle at a crowded bazaar sends a dozen shoppers to Allah. 2012.08.14 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 52-year-old plantation worker is cut down by Muslim gunmen. 2012.08.14 Indonesia Sukabumi 1 0 A cleric is murdered by members of an Islamic sect. 2012.08.14 Nigeria Damaturu 9 0 Nine people are slain by Boko Haram Islamists. 2012.08.14 Pakistan Sangar 1 2 An innocent person is murdered during an attack by Islamists. 2012.08.14 Dagestan Khasavyurt 2 1 Suspected Islamists shoot two police officers to death. 2012.08.14 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 Muslim 'insurgents' shoot a local villager several times in the head and torso. 2012.08.14 Egypt Asyut 1 0 Salafis storm a Christian-owned store and murder the owner. 2012.08.13 Nigeria Gombe 1 1 A guard is killed during a Religion of Peace assault on a Catholic church. 2012.08.13 Pakistan Charsadda 2 0 A young couple is shot to death by the woman's family for marrying without their permission. 2012.08.13 Pakistan Saro Wano 1 1 A preacher is machine-gunned in his mosque by Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.08.13 Egypt Sinai 2 0 A man and his son are shot to death by Islamists shortly after denouncing them. 2012.08.13 Afghanistan Ishkamish 5 0 Islamic hardliners blow up five locals. 2012.08.12 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Suspected Muslim terrorists murder a 55-year-old sleeping in his truck. 2012.08.12 Pakistan Miranshah 3 3 Sunni terrorists kill three local soliders with a roadside bomb. 2012.08.12 Philippines Alip 2 4 Two people at a banana plantation are mowed down by Muslim militants. 2012.08.12 Afghanistan Alishang 4 0 Four Afghans are dismantled by a Taliban roadside bomb. 2012.08.12 Iraq Jurf al-Sakhar 3 5 Mujahideen bombers take down three Iraqis. 2012.08.12 Iraq Baghdad 2 0 Two charity workers are assassinated by religious rivals. 2012.08.12 Afghanistan Panjwai 4 4 Four people are cut down by a Taliban ambush. 2012.08.12 Pakistan Mera Kachuri 2 0 A father and son are brutally tortured to death by militant Muslims. 2012.08.12 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 A radio journilist is assassinated by suspected Islamists. 2012.08.12 Iraq Suleiman Bek 8 0 Eight more Shiite teens are rounded up and murdered by Sunni gunmen. 2012.08.11 Syria Jdeidet Artouz 1 0 A journalist is murdered following threats from al-Nusra. 2012.08.11 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 41-year-old plantation worker is riddled with bullets by Muslim 'separatists'. 2012.08.11 Somalia Mogadishu 2 2 Two Somalis bleed to death from shrapnel injuries suffered during an al-Shabaab attack. 2012.08.11 Iraq Amerili 7 0 Sunnis ride into a town, single out seven young Shiites and execute them in cold blood. 2012.08.11 Pakistan Bara 4 1 Four local tribesmen are ambushed and killed by Lashkar-e-Islam militants. 2012.08.11 Pakistan Peshawar 1 0 A guard at a mosque dies preventing a shooting rampage by rivals. 2012.08.11 Afghanistan Jambaran 1 1 Religious radicals assassinate a tribal chief in his home. 2012.08.11 Afghanistan Delaram 11 0 A Taliban in police uniform surprises eleven local cops and shoots them to death. 2012.08.10 Yemen Mukalla 2 1 Two men are killed following an al-Qaeda car bomb blast. 2012.08.10 Iraq al-Muqdadiyah 3 2 Mujahideen bombers send three Iraqis to Allah. 2012.08.10 Iraq Mosul 5 70 A Shahid suicide bomber targets a Shiite mosque, slaughtering at least five worshippers. 2012.08.10 Afghanistan Musa Qala 6 1 Women and children are among six civilians torn to shreds by a Taliban bomb. 2012.08.10 Iraq Dujail 4 0 al-Qaeda gunmen take down four Sunnis. 2012.08.10 Philippines Jolo 1 0 A Christian man is gunned down by Abu Sayyaf terrorists on his way home from church. 2012.08.10 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 28-year-old man is shot off his motorbike by Muslim 'separatists.' 2012.08.10 India Moominabad 1 0 The Islamic Movement of Kashmir murders a retiree outside a mosque. 2012.08.10 Iraq Haditha 3 0 Terrorists kill three members of the same family. 2012.08.10 Philippines Datu Unsay 1 0 A local cop is slain by Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters. 2012.08.10 Nigeria Kombul 4 3 Four Christians are cut down in their homes by a Muslim raid on their village. 2012.08.10 Lebanon Akkar 1 9 Religious clashes leave one dead. 2012.08.10 Syria al-Bab 3 0 Unarmed men are thrown from a roof to shouts of 'Allah Akbar'. 2012.08.10 Afghanistan Balkh 1 0 A female school principal is murdered in her own home by suspected fundamentalists. 2012.08.09 India Baktoor 1 0 Islamic militants kill a border guard during an infiltration attempt. 2012.08.09 Pakistan Upper Dir 2 0 Two border guards are murdered during a Taliban assault. 2012.08.09 Iraq Fallujah 4 4 Children are among the casualties when Islamic 'insurgents' blow up a family home. 2012.08.09 Iraq Baghdad 2 19 Islamists bomb a marketplace, killing two patrons. 2012.08.09 Dagestan Botlikh 5 0 Islamists open fire on a group of police, killing five. 2012.08.09 Afghanistan Helmand 3 0 Three American soldiers are invited to dinner by local police, and then murdered. 2012.08.08 Iraq Baghdad 1 1 The minister of Culture is assassinated in an attack that leaves his wife badly wounded. 2012.08.08 Afghanistan Asadabad 4 3 Four people are slain by a Fedayeen suicide bomber, including an aid official. 2012.08.08 Dagestan Endireiaul 0 1 A former imam is shot after coming out against terror. 2012.08.08 Nigeria Okene 3 0 A woman is among three people gunned down by terrorists 'chanting Islamic praises'. 2012.08.08 Iraq Suwayra 13 30 Sunni car bombers massacre thirteen Shiite worshippers at a packed religious ceremony. 2012.08.08 Somalia Mogadishu 8 2 An al-Shabaab roadside bomb leaves eight dead. 2012.08.08 Syria Hourani 1 3 One person is killed during a clash between Sunni and Shia. 2012.08.08 Iraq Baiji 8 0 Islamic State of Iraq members enter a home and exterminate a family of eight. 2012.08.07 Syria Homs 16 0 Sunni militia attack a housing complex for religious minorities, killing sixteen. 2012.08.07 Afghanistan Paghman 9 3 Hardline Islamists blow up a civilian minibus, sending nine souls to Allah. 2012.08.07 Thailand Pattani 0 9 Nine school guards are injured by a Muslim bomb. 2012.08.07 Somalia Garowe 1 0 A local lawmaker is shot to death outside a mosque by al-Shabaab. 2012.08.07 Iraq Hamiat 3 6 Three children are pulled into pieces by bombs planted in two homes. 2012.08.07 Pakistan Shah Khan 2 0 Two tribal elders are murdered by suspected Islamists. 2012.08.06 Nigeria Okene 20 9 Sharia proponents enter a church and open up on members with machine-guns, slaughtering at least nineteen, including the pastor. 2012.08.06 Chechnya Khankala 3 3 Three local soldiers are killed by a Fedayeen suicide blast. 2012.08.06 Iraq Khanaqin 2 2 Sunnis bomb a Kurdish family home, killing two. 2012.08.06 Philippines Shariff Aguak 2 1 Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters kidnap, torture and execute two local soldiers. 2012.08.06 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Four Muslims murder a 55-year-old man with a shotgun. 2012.08.06 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A non-Muslim motorcycle repairman is shot in the head by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.08.06 Pakistan Jamrud 1 0 Hardliners fire into a truck, killing the driver. 2012.08.06 Iraq al-Haswa 3 13 Jihadi car bombers take out three Iraqis. 2012.08.06 Dagestan Tsuntinsky 2 1 Islamic snipers pick off two local cops. 2012.08.06 India Sendabal 1 2 A youth dies when two groups clash at a mosque over a prayer disagreement. 2012.08.06 Iraq Hillah 4 0 Four Iraqis on a minibus are torn to shreds by 'insurgent' bombers. 2012.08.06 Iraq Baghdad 2 0 Two local officials are murdered by Mujahid gunmen. 2012.08.06 Nigeria Maiduguri 1 0 A church pastor is shot to death in his home by two Islamists. 2012.08.06 Afghanistan Charsadda 1 3 The Taliban tie a landmine to a donkey that fatally injures a local cop. 2012.08.06 Syria Damascus 6 0 Sunni terrorists massacre an entire Shiite family in their home, including hanging the youngest child. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Milwat 1 0 Lashkar-e-Islam militants murder a peace committee volunteer. 2012.08.05 Nigeria Damaturu 7 9 Seven Nigerians are disassembled by a Shahid suicide car bomber. 2012.08.05 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 al-Shabaab gunmen assassinate an airport manager. 2012.08.05 Nigeria Maiduguri 4 0 Four people are shot to death in their homes by Boko Haram Islamists. 2012.08.05 Iraq Mosul 3 0 Suspected al-Qaeda open up point-blank on three local cops. 2012.08.05 Afghanistan Bamiyan 6 12 Taliban ambush and kill four Afghans and two NATO troops coming to their defense. 2012.08.05 Egypt Sinai 16 7 Gaza Jihadists cross the border and murder sixteen Egyptian border police. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Bahawalnagar 4 3 A woman and her daughters are hacked to death with an axe by her husband and sons on suspicion of 'relations with neighbors'. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Faizabad 3 12 A Religion of Peace bomb kills two children and a woman. 2012.08.05 Pakistan Gilgit 2 4 Two passengers bleed out from splinter injuries after Islamic militants toss a grenade into a bus. 2012.08.05 Philippines Maguindanao 1 11 At least one woman is killed when Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Movement members overrun a Catholic village. 2012.08.05 Syria Jdaidet Artuz 1 0 A Shiite film director is assassinated by Sunni terrorists. 2012.08.05 Iraq Tuz Khurmatu 4 2 Jihadi bombers send four Iraqis to Allah. 2012.08.04 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 57-year-old cop is ambushed and killed by Muslim militants. 2012.08.04 Yemen Jaar 49 37 An al-Qaeda suicide bomber blows forty-nine funeral-goers into pieces. 2012.08.04 Afghanistan Gala Joy 8 10 Eight are killed when two groups of Islamists work out their differences. 2012.08.04 Pakistan Gilgit 1 0 A 34-year-old Shiite farmer is tortured and beheaded by Wahhabi radicals. 2012.08.04 Afghanistan Ghormach 3 12 Taliban fundamentalists toss a bomb into a market, sending at least three souls to Allah. 2012.08.03 Syria Damascus 1 0 al-Nusra terrorists kidnap and execute a television presenter. 2012.08.03 Saudi Arabia Qatif 2 1 A clash between Sunni and Shia leaves two dead. 2012.08.03 Afghanistan Kunar 2 0 A woman is among two people killed in attack by Sunni hardliners. 2012.08.03 Pakistan Risalpur 11 23 Mujahideen plant a bomb on a child's tricycle at a market, which rips eleven people to shreds. 2012.08.03 Yemen Sanaa 1 0 Suspected al-Qaeda gunmen strafe a car with bullets, killing the driver. 2012.08.03 Iraq Baghdad 5 11 Drive-by Jihadis take down five Iraqis. 2012.08.03 Kenya Nairobi 1 9 An Islamist throws a grenade into a supermarket, killing at least one. 2012.08.03 Syria Damascus 21 17 Militants with al-Qaeda ties are blamed for sending mortars into a refugee camp, killing at least twenty-one. 2012.08.03 Pakistan Charsadda 0 2 Two workers are injured when Islamists throw a grenade into a humanitarian agency helping flood victims. 2012.08.03 Iraq Dhuluiyah 4 4 Four Iraqis are torn apart by an 'insurgent' roadside bomb. 2012.08.03 Afghanistan Daulatzai 0 23 Two dozen people are injured when Mujahideen set off a bomb at a rival mosque during prayers. 2012.08.02 Pakistan Akhorwal 1 0 Tehreek-e-Taliban gunmen murder a local man. 2012.08.02 India Kasargod 1 0 A Hindu leader is shot to death by Muslim militants. 2012.08.02 Jordan Baoun 1 0 A 22-year-old divorced woman is stabbed to death by her brother for not submitting to his control. 2012.08.02 Dagestan Kizilyurt 1 1 One police officer is dead and another loses a leg to Religion of Peace attacks. 2012.08.02 Iraq Kirkuk 4 0 Muslim terrorists enter a home and cut the throats of a father, mother and two daughters. 2012.08.02 Iraq Baghdad 9 32 Women are among the casualties when Sunnis bomb a market in a Shiite neighborhood. 2012.08.02 Iraq Balad 3 0 Three Iraqis are blown to bits by an 'insurgent' bomb. 2012.08.02 Iraq Tikrit 4 0 Four policemen are machine-gunned at close range by Sunni terrorists. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Lagharai Thal 1 0 Religious radicals gun down a school teacher. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Mochiwala 1 1 A woman is shot to death by her brother on suspicion of illicit relations. 2012.08.01 Pal. Auth. Tulkarm 1 0 A Palestinian man stabs his teenage daughter to death in a suspected honor killing. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Lahore 0 23 Twenty-three casualties result from Islamists bombing a fruit market. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Hyderabad 1 0 A young woman is shot to death by her brother for marrying of her own free will. 2012.08.01 Yemen Abyan 5 0 Five people die during an al-Qaeda grenade and gunfire attack. 2012.08.01 Pakistan Tandlianwala 2 0 A woman is strangled by her brother over 'loose morals'. 2012.08.01 Somalia Mogadishu 6 0 Six guards are taken apart by two Fedayeen suicide bombers. 2012.08.01 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 A comedian is shot to death after mocking Islamists on stage. 2012.08.01 Somalia Mogadishu 1 0 At least one other person is killed when two suicide bombers detonate. 2012.08.01 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim gunmen murder a local official on his way home from work. 2012.08.01 Afghanistan Jalrez 4 0 Four civilians are kidnapped and murdered by the Taliban. 2012.07.31 Pakistan Karachi 0 11 Eleven nurses fall ill after hospital food is poisoned to punish Ramadan eaters. 2012.07.31 Iraq Mosul 1 3 A man is killed, and his baby, mother and wife injured in their own home by Muslim terrorists. 2012.07.31 Thailand Pattani 2 4 Islamic militants fire into a tea shop, killing two patrons. 2012.07.31 Iraq Baghdad 7 21 A car bombing outside a restaurant leaves seven dead. 2012.07.31 Yemen Jaar 2 3 Ansar al-Sharia gunmen on motorcycles open fire on a police station, killing two. 2012.07.31 Syria Aleppo 40 0 Approximately forty 'loyalists' are beaten and executed to chants of 'Allah Akbar'. 2012.07.31 Somalia Mogadishu 1 9 An Islamist bomb outside a soft drink factory leaves one dead. 2012.07.31 Iraq Baghdad 15 35 Jihadis bomb a passport office, killing fifteen innocent people waiting in line. 2012.07.31 Iraq Saqlawiyah 2 2 Two family members are killed by an 'insurgent' roadside bomb. 2012.07.30 Nigeria Sokoto 1 0 Three Boko Haram gunmen shoot a shoe-shine worker to death. 2012.07.30 Nigeria Sokoto 2 30 Fedayeen suicide car bombers take down a hairdresser and a cop. 2012.07.30 Pakistan Mardan 4 0 Terrorists shoot four farm workers to death. 2012.07.30 Kenya Mandera 1 0 al-Shabaab gunmen spray the car of a mobile phone dealer with bullets, killing the driver. 2012.07.30 Afghanistan Tarinkot 5 0 Five civilians at a mosque are sent straight to Allah by Religion of Peace bombers. 2012.07.29 Iraq Fallujah 7 9 Seven local cops are bombed or shot to death by Ramadan terrorists. 2012.07.29 Pakistan Mansehra 0 2 Fundamentalists bomb a CD shop selling music and a primary school for girls. 2012.07.29 Iraq Muqdadiya 4 13 Jihadi bombers take down four civilians. 2012.07.29 Yemen Radah 1 0 A 14-year-old boy is cut to pieces by an al-Qaeda bomb. 2012.07.29 Mali Aguelhok 2 0 A married couple is buried up to their necks and stoned to death for adultery. 2012.07.29 Afghanistan Chak 1 1 A man is killed and his young so injured in an ambush by Sunni fundamentalists. 2012.07.29 Nigeria Kano 2 2 An air force officer is ambushed and killed by Muslim gunmen along with his aide. 2012.07.29 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 45-year-old man is shot three times in the head by Islamic terrorists. 2012.07.29 Nigeria Kano 2 0 Two Christians are gunned down outside their homes by Boko Haram Islamists. 2012.07.29 Kenya Mandera 1 0 Islamists gun down a driver for a telephone company. 2012.07.28 Yemen Sanaa 1 0 al-Qaeda radicals hand a 12-year-old a packaged bomb, which is then detonated remotely, disassembling the child. 2012.07.28 Thailand Pattani 4 2 Four Thai soldiers are brutally shot to death at close range by Muslim terrorists. 2012.07.28 India Anantnag 2 4 Two tourists are killed when Muslim militants toss a hand grenade at a taxi. 2012.07.28 Iraq Samarrah 5 0 Mujahideen shoot five women to death in their own home. 2012.07.28 Thailand Yala 1 0 A Muslim 'separatist' assassinates a rival Muslim in a mosque. 2012.07.28 Thailand Pattani 2 0 A teenager is among two Buddhists murdered by Muslim 'separatists.' 2012.07.27 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 66-year-old man is gunned down in a Muslim ambush. 2012.07.27 Dagestan Makhachkala 3 0 Three people are killed when Islamic extremists set off a car bomb. 2012.07.27 Thailand Pattani 1 1 Militant Muslims fire on a young married couple, killing the 18-year-old woman. 2012.07.27 Nigeria Maiduguri 7 0 Suspected Boko Haram barge into four homes and murder seven residents. 2012.07.27 Somalia Baidoa 4 3 Four local soldiers are killed by an al-Shabaab bomb blast. 2012.07.27 Pakistan Quetta 1 0 Wahhabi terrorists torture a Shiite man with knives and then kill him. 2012.07.27 Dagestan Makhachkala 1 0 A police officer is shot to death in his car by Islamic militants. 2012.07.27 Pakistan Mardan 6 0 Jihadists shoot six people to death in separate attacks. 2012.07.26 Philippines Sumisip 5 22 Abu Sayyaf terrorists attack a Christian farming village, killing at least five. 2012.07.26 Pakistan Akka Khel 3 4 Three people outside a mosque are blown to bits by Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.26 Philippines Sumisip 10 17 An Abu Sayyaf clash with local troops responding to a prior massacre leaves ten dead. 2012.07.26 Nigeria Bauchi 3 1 Suspected Islamists ambush a group of policemen, killing three. 2012.07.26 Thailand Yala 1 0 Muslim militants shoot a local several times in the torso. 2012.07.26 Pakistan Khar 15 23 Religion of Peace militants detonate a shrapnel bomb at a crowded market which kills fifteen people, including those dying later in the hospital. 2012.07.26 Iraq Hadid 11 0 Eleven security personnel are killed in an al-Qaeda ambush. 2012.07.26 Egypt Shubra el Khayma 0 1 A Christian doctor is brutally blinded by Salafist Muslims after asking them to stop firing weapons in celebration. 2012.07.26 Thailand Yala 2 0 Two villagers are machine-gunned by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.07.25 Syria Homs 9 0 News breaks of nine Alawite bus passengers are split off from the rest and decapitated by Sunnis. 2012.07.25 Jordan Jerash 1 0 An honor killer stabs his sister and then runs over her several times with a truck after suspecting her of 'immoral behavior'. 2012.07.25 Pakistan Dabori 3 0 Three defenders are killed during a Taliban ambush of a local post. 2012.07.25 Pakistan Bara 1 0 Islamists kidnap a 70-year-old man, slit his throat and then spray him with bullets. 2012.07.25 Iraq Diyala 4 12 Four local cops are killed by Muslim terrorists. 2012.07.25 Nigeria Borno 3 0 Three people are killed in an Islamist ambush. 2012.07.25 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 3 Sharia fanatics attack an Indian-owned business and murder the owners. 2012.07.25 Iraq Ad-Dawr 5 4 Four children under the age of 10 are dismantled along with their mother by Religion of Peace bombers. 2012.07.25 Thailand Yala 5 1 Muslim 'separatists' kill five police officers with a bomb hidden in a car. 2012.07.25 Pakistan Gulbehar 1 0 A 14-year-old girl is murdered when Lashkar e Jhangvi gunmen attack a Shia ceremony. 2012.07.24 Nigeria Gwamaja 1 0 A cleric is gunned down by Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.24 Afghanistan Ghor 7 0 Seven children are torn to shreds by a Taliban bomb. 2012.07.24 Iraq Kirkuk 1 2 A 10-year-old girl is pulled into pieces by an 'insurgent' bomb. 2012.07.24 Nigeria Kano 1 0 A high-school teacher is shot to death by Boko Haram. 2012.07.24 Pakistan Darra Adamkhel 0 7 A Taliban 'toy bomb' injures seven children. 2012.07.24 Afghanistan Parwan 3 0 Two Afghans and an American engineer are machine-gunned by Sunni fundamentalists. 2012.07.24 Iraq Tuz Khormato 6 0 al-Qaeda is suspected in the murder of six Kurdish intelligence officers. 2012.07.24 Iraq Baqubah 3 29 Three passersby are killed when terrorists blow up a parked bus. 2012.07.24 Nigeria Kano 2 0 A married couple are murdered by pro-Sharia gunmen. 2012.07.24 Pakistan Jamrud 1 1 Islamic militants fire on a truck, killing the driver. 2012.07.23 Iraq Diwaniya 5 32 al-Qaeda 'insurgents' car bomb a vegetable market, killing at least five patrons. 2012.07.23 Iraq Udhaim 13 23 Thirteen Iraqis are mowed down at point blank range by al-Qaeda gunmen. 2012.07.23 Iraq Baquban 3 7 Jihadis exterminate three Iraqis with a roadside bomb. 2012.07.23 Iraq Baghdad 6 24 Six Shiites are blown to bits by Sunni bombers while relaxing at a cafe. 2012.07.23 Nigeria Bauchi 1 10 Sharia advocates set off a bomb near a local bar, killing a 6-year-old boy. 2012.07.23 Nigeria Bulumkutu 3 0 Three men are assassinated by suspected Islamists in separate attacks. 2012.07.23 Nigeria Maiduguri 5 0 Five people lose their lives to Boko Haram gunmen. 2012.07.23 Iraq Sadr City 21 73 Sunni bombers strike at the heart of a Shiite slum, slaughtering at least twenty-one with two car bombs. 2012.07.23 Iraq Baghdad 17 96 An additional seventeen Iraqis are reported dead from small arms attacks and bombings claimed by the Islamic State of Iraq. 2012.07.23 Iraq Kirkuk 12 47 At least a dozen people are shot or blown up by a series of al-Qaeda attacks. 2012.07.23 Iraq Mosul 9 0 Holy Warriors take down nine locals in armed attacks. 2012.07.23 Iraq Taji 42 48 Forty-two people are killed in a series of al-Qaeda bombings outside a housing complex. 2012.07.23 Iraq Dhuluiya 16 4 Sixteen Iraqis are taken out by a Mujahideen grenade and shooting attack. 2012.07.22 Afghanistan Helmand 2 0 A father shoots his two daughters to death for leaving home with a man. 2012.07.22 Iraq Baghdad 1 0 The bodyguard of a Shiite politician is gunned down by suspected Sunni shooters. 2012.07.22 Iraq Mahmudiya 11 38 Three Ramadan bombs leave eleven Iraqis dead. 2012.07.22 Iraq Madaen 15 60 Sunni bombers take out fifteen Shia shoppers at a packed market. 2012.07.22 Iraq Najaf 4 28 A busy trading street is the target of Mujahideen bomber, who kill four innocents. 2012.07.22 Saudi Arabia Riyadh 1 0 Extremists assassinate a government official with a bomb. 2012.07.22 Afghanistan Jalrez 5 0 Five civilians are captured by the Taliban, then bound and executed. 2012.07.22 Syria Damascus 4 0 The 'Islamic Brigade' stops a car carrying a Christian family, force them out and then massacre them, including the two children. 2012.07.22 Iraq Najaf 0 23 A Sunni attempt to car bomb a Shia shrine leaves two dozen injured. 2012.07.22 Pakistan Hyderabad 2 0 Two Christians are shot to death by Muslim radicals. 2012.07.22 Philippines Tumahubong 0 4 There are four casualties when suspected Abu Sayaaf gunmen ambush a group of priests. 2012.07.22 Somalia Lower Shabelle 3 0 Three 'spies' are executed by al-Shabaab. 2012.07.22 Afghanistan Kabul 3 2 A terrorist disguised in uniform turns his weapon on civilian workers, killing three. 2012.07.21 Ingushetia Magas 2 3 Two security personnel die in a grenade and small arms ambush on their vehicle. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Gadap 1 0 A medical worker is assassinated by the Taliban for assisting an anti-polio drive. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Spin Thall 12 8 Eight young children are among a dozen people disassembled by a Fedayeen suicide bomber. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Dhog Darra 3 0 Taliban bombers take down three civilians in a pick-up truck. 2012.07.21 Tajikistan Khorog 1 0 A government official is stabbed to death by an Islamic radical. 2012.07.21 Pakistan Dir Bala 4 7 Fundamentalists bomb a peace committee bus, killing four riders. 2012.07.20 India Jayapur 4 0 Four Hindu youth are hacked to death by a Muslim mob. 2012.07.20 Pakistan Shahdara 1 0 A young woman is beaten and then shot by her brothers for not heeding their warning about wearing pants. 2012.07.20 India Kupwara 1 0 Muslim terrorists murder a local soldier. 2012.07.20 Pakistan Shalozan 1 1 Islamic militants fire a rocket into a populated area, killing a 16-year-old girl and injuring her brother. 2012.07.20 Iraq Kadhimiya 2 0 Two brothers are shot to death by 'insurgents'. 2012.07.20 Afghanistan Sarab 5 0 All five Afghans riding in a car are blown to bits by fundamentalist bombers. 2012.07.19 Yemen Aden 1 0 A local official is killed by an Ansar al-Sharia car bomb. 2012.07.19 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim 'separatists' pursue 43-year-old man and shoot him. 2012.07.19 Afghanistan Faryab 8 6 A woman and child are among eight civilians ripped to pieces by a Taliban bomb. 2012.07.19 Egypt Sheikh Zweid 2 0 Bearded Islamists in robes machine-gun two local soldiers along a city street at point blank range. 2012.07.19 Russia Kazan 1 1 Two advocates of peaceful Islam are targeted by radicals. One is shot to death and the other injured in a car bomb. 2012.07.19 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim terrorists shoot a 25-year-old man to death. 2012.07.19 Thailand Yala 1 3 Two bombings by Islamic 'separatists' leave one person dead. 2012.07.19 Pakistan Bajaur 3 0 Three people are kidnapped, tortured and executed by Islamic radicals. 2012.07.19 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 0 Two traders at a market are murdered in cold blood by Boko Haram gunmen. 2012.07.19 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A 52-year-old leader of the Ahamdi minority is shot in the head by defenders of mainstream Islam. 2012.07.19 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Sipah-e-Sahab terrorists gun down a 50-year-old Shiite. 2012.07.19 Yemen Bayda 1 0 A security officer is picked off by two al-Qaeda gunmen. 2012.07.18 India Kerala 1 2 Campus Islamists stab three Hindu students, one of whom bleeds to death. 2012.07.18 Pakistan Spai 14 0 Eight members of one family, including women and young children, are disassembled along with six others by a bus bomb attack on Shia pilgrims deemed 'enemies of Islam.' 2012.07.18 Somalia Damascus 2 2 A suicide bomber kills two officials. 2012.07.18 Lebanon Tripoli 1 8 Sunni snipers fire into an Alawite neighborhood, taking out a child. 2012.07.18 Pal. Auth. al-Shati 1 0 A 17-year-old girl is strangled by her father and brother over a moral issue. 2012.07.18 Pakistan Jahanian 2 0 Two teen lovers are tortured and shot for having eloped without the permission of the girl's conservative family. 2012.07.18 Bulgaria Burgas 7 30 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates on a bus carrying Israeli tourists, killing seven and injuring dozens more. 2012.07.18 Iraq Mosul 11 3 A woman and her son sitting in their house are among eleven people murdered by terrorists. 2012.07.17 Nigeria Jos 1 0 A 10-year-old boy dies from splinter injuries from a Boko Haram RPG attack on his home. 2012.07.17 Pakistan Karachi 0 2 The Taliban are suspected of firing on a polio vaccination team trying to treat children. 2012.07.17 Afghanistan Washer 9 7 Sunni radicals stage an ambush that leaves nine Afghans dead. 2012.07.17 Thailand Narathiwat 3 5 Islamic militants open up on a group of local soldiers, killing a bystander as well. 2012.07.16 Somalia Mogadishu 7 5 Proponents of Sharia detonate a bomb under a car that decapitates the driver and leaves six others dead. 2012.07.16 Pakistan Sultanabad 1 0 A prayer leader is shot to death by rivals. 2012.07.16 Yemen Taez 4 4 A 5-year-old girl and her father are among four people gunned down in a brutal attack. 2012.07.16 Afghanistan Khan Abad 1 8 An innocent person is killed when Islamic extremists blow up a car. 2012.07.16 Afghanistan Spin Boldak 3 0 Three civilians are taken down by Taliban bombers. 2012.07.16 Pakistan Bannu 3 3 Taliban in burqas shoot three guards to death at a police station. 2012.07.16 Kenya Lagdera 1 1 A local cop dies during an al-Shabaab ambush. 2012.07.16 Iraq Mosul 2 0 'Insurgents' kill two local cops with a bomb. 2012.07.15 Pakistan Sheehan 4 1 Three children between the ages of 2 and 9 are torn apart in their home by shrapnel from a Lashkar e-Islam mortar shell. 2012.07.15 Pakistan Mian Kalay Jandol 1 0 A dozen Islamists assault a police post, killing the lone defender. 2012.07.15 Syria Damascus 2 0 The al-Nusra terror group claims two killings, one of which was of a barber. 2012.07.15 Iraq Diyala 3 10 A 3-year-old girl is among three Iraqis taken down by Mujahideen attacks. 2012.07.15 India Kerala 1 0 A Hindu activist is attacked and murdered by Muslim radicals. 2012.07.14 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Lashkar Jhangvi kidnap, torture and murder a 16-year-old Shiite. 2012.07.14 Iraq Mosul 4 0 Two civilians are among four Iraqis shot to death at a checkpoint by Mujahideen. 2012.07.14 Dagestan Makhachkala 2 0 Two local cops are gunned down by suspected Islamists. 2012.07.14 Pakistan Haripur 1 0 A 21-year-old mother is beaten to death by her conservative brother on suspicion of an affair. 2012.07.14 Somalia Mogadishu 1 3 Militant Islamists kill a civilian with a roadside bomb. 2012.07.14 Iraq Rashidiyah 5 2 Sunni militants machine-gun five local cops at point-blank range. 2012.07.14 Afghanistan Aybak 23 60 A Fedayeen suicide bomber detonates at a packed wedding, sending nearly two dozen souls to Allah. 2012.07.14 Syria Muhrada 4 0 Two woman and a child are among four people torn to shreds by a Shahid suicide bomber. 2012.07.14 Thailand Pattani 1 0 A 41-year-old man is gunned down in a Muslim drive-by. 2012.07.14 Pakistan Baddar 3 5 Tehreek-e-Taliban militants murder three people. 2012.07.13 Afghanistan Laghman 1 2 A women's ministry official bleeds out following a Taliban bombing of her family vehicle. 2012.07.13 India Baghpat 0 2 Two policemen are beaten by an enraged mob of Muslims after arresting two clerics. 2012.07.13 Indonesia Bogor 0 4 A Sunni mob attacks Ahmadi minorities with knives and machetes. 2012.07.13 Iraq Baghdad 1 1 A woman is killed in her own home by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.07.13 Pakistan Quetta 7 22 Islamic 'extremists' are suspected in a blast at a rally that leaves seven dead, including a 7-year-old girl. 2012.07.13 Nigeria Maiduguri 5 6 A Boko Haram suicide bomber murders five bystanders outside a mosque. 2012.07.13 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 A Shiite father of three is murdered by Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen. 2012.07.12 Pakistan Lahore 10 8 Tehreek-e-Taliban fundamentalists enter a barracks and shoot ten sleeping policemen to death. 2012.07.12 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 40-year-old man is shot six times in the torso by Islamic 'separatists'. 2012.07.12 Iraq Mosul 5 3 Terrorists take down five Iraqis. 2012.07.12 Pakistan Jaffarabad 1 0 A Hindu is shot to death by drive-by Jihadis. 2012.07.12 Pakistan Quetta 1 0 A Shiite boy is shot to death by Wahhabis. 2012.07.11 Afghanistan Zhari 4 2 Taliban infiltrators shoot four local cops to death in their sleep. 2012.07.11 Pakistan Karachi 2 0 A man and his 2-year-old son are gunned down by sectarian Jihadis. 2012.07.11 Pakistan Mian Gundi 2 0 A prayer leader is among two Shiites kidnapped and beheaded by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Sunnis. 2012.07.11 Syria Aleppo 17 0 Seventeen Palestinians are kidnapped and murdered by Sunni terrorists. 2012.07.11 Yemen Sanaa 22 24 An al-Qaeda suicide bomber targets a police academy, slaughtering about two dozen young aspirants. 2012.07.11 Philippines Tumahubong 6 27 Six rubber plantation workers are shredded by Abu Sayyaf bombers while on their way to work. 2012.07.11 Pakistan Karachi 1 23 One person is killed when terrorists attempt to blow up a bus carrying space agency employees. 2012.07.10 Pakistan Shamsabad 1 0 A teacher is shot dead on the way to work on the same day that Taliban militants blow up two schools. 2012.07.10 Iraq Ramadi 4 4 A shocking attack and brutal by Mujahideen on a police checkpoint leaves four officers dead. 2012.07.10 Philippines Sumisip 0 8 An Abu Sayyaf bomb injures eight local soldiers. 2012.07.10 Iraq Baghdad 3 14 Sunnis bomb a bus carrying Shiites, killing three and injuring fourteen. 2012.07.09 Pakistan Gujrat 8 4 Hardline Islamists open fire on a group of security personnel, killing eight. 2012.07.09 India Gaziabad 1 0 A Hindu man is the victim of a targeted killing by Muslims. 2012.07.09 Iraq Samarrah 2 0 Two Iraqis are shot to death by al-Qaeda. 2012.07.09 Saudi Arabia Awamiya 2 1 Sunni cops are accused of firing randomly at Shiites, killing two. 2012.07.09 Iraq Mosul 7 7 Seven Iraqis are murdered by Islamic 'insurgents'. 2012.07.09 Afghanistan Kandahar 5 30 Two children are among five people pulled into pieces by three Shahid suicide bombers. 2012.07.08 Nigeria Barkin-Ladi 23 1 Two politicians are among twenty-three Christians, including women and children, slaughtered by Muslims during a funeral for other victims of Islamic terror. 2012.07.08 Afghanistan Arghistan 18 30 Eighteen civilians, including women and children, are torn to shreds by Taliban bombers. 2012.07.08 Pakistan Kot Ghulam 1 0 A Christian laborer is pulled out of his truck and shot point-blank by a Muslim. 2012.07.08 Afghanistan Musa Qala 5 0 Sunni fundamentalists massacre five local cops with a roadside bomb. 2012.07.07 Nigeria Kushen 80 300 Muslim terrorists attack twelve Christian villages and massacre eighty innocents, including fifty taking refuge in a church. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Peshawar 1 3 A policeman bleeds to death from shrapnel injuries following a Religion of Peace bombing. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Karachi 2 1 Two brothers are murdered by sectarian Jihadis. 2012.07.07 Afghanistan Chora 6 1 Three children are among six civilians blown to bits by Sunni hardliners. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Buggan 1 0 Sunni hardliners assassinate a pro-government tribal leader. 2012.07.07 Afghanistan Farah 1 26 A Taliban rocket attack on a residence leaves one dead. 2012.07.07 Afghanistan Gereshk 1 1 A child is dismantled by a Taliban bomb. 2012.07.07 Iraq Ramadi 10 38 A suicide bomber detonates in the house of a family member, killing ten relatives, most of whom were women. 2012.07.07 Thailand Narathiwat 1 3 Muslim 'separatists' set off a bomb that kills a local soldier and leaves three others badly wounded. 2012.07.07 India Pampore 1 1 Islamic militants gun down a local security officer. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Tiyarza 4 3 Four local police officers are blown to bits by Islamic militia. 2012.07.07 Pakistan Sharifabad 1 0 A 55-year-odl Shiite is brought down by Sunni snipers. 2012.07.07 Kosovo Pristina 2 0 A middle-aged Christian couple is found shot to death in their home in what is presumed to be a targeted attack by members of the Muslim majority. 2012.07.07 Somalia Shabelle 4 3 al-Shabaab militants open fire on a passenger bus, killing at least four. 2012.07.06 Iraq Hit 3 6 Terrorists kill three policemen outside a mosque. 2012.07.06 Iraq Anbar 5 9 An entire family of four, including two children, bleed to death following a suicide attack on their home. 2012.07.06 Pakistan Sariab 1 0 A religious scholar is assassinated by devout rivals. 2012.07.06 Egypt Giza 0 4 Fundamentalists enter a pool hall and shoot four people after telling them to stop playing and start praying. 2012.07.05 Nigeria Maiduguri 2 0 Sharia advocates slit the throats of two people. 2012.07.05 Iraq Mosul 5 20 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates inside a barber shop, sending at least five others to Allah. 2012.07.05 Iraq Baqubah 1 2 An al-Qaeda bomb leaves one person dead. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Jamrud 1 0 A young women's rights activist is gunned down in a targeted attack. 2012.07.04 Iraq Mosul 3 1 A woman is among three Iraqis taken down by Mujahideen bombers. 2012.07.04 Nigeria Borno 2 0 Two employees at a housing complex are chased down and murdered by Boko Haram radicals. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Kuchlak 3 0 Lashkar-e-Jhangvi gunmen murder three Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.04 Kenya Mandera 1 0 Somali militants shoot a 16-year-old girl several times in the chest. 2012.07.04 Afghanistan Ghazni 3 0 An honor killer beheads his ex-wife and two children. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Pasrur 2 3 A pregnant woman and her baby are shot to death by Wahhabis because they were Shia. 2012.07.04 Pakistan Bahawalpur 1 0 A mentally-ill man is tortured, doused with petrol and burned alive by a mob angered over reports that he burned a Quran. 2012.07.04 Afghanistan Marjeh 1 3 A woman is taken out by a Taliban roadside bomb. 2012.07.04 Iraq Baghdad 3 0 Terrorists assassinate three people in separate attacks. 2012.07.04 Iraq Zubaidiyah 8 37 One child and two women are among eight dead when Sunnis detonate a bomb at a Shiite market. 2012.07.03 Iraq Diwaniya 40 75 Sunnis set off a powerful bomb near a Shiite mosque, taking down at least forty Religion of Peace rivals. 2012.07.03 Pakistan Bara Kamangra 1 4 Islamic militants kill one person with a remote-controlled bomb. 2012.07.03 Thailand Yala 1 0 A 49-year-old Buddhist is dismantled by Muslim bombers while on his way home. 2012.07.03 India Pulwama 2 0 Muslim terrorists shoot an off-duty policeman and a traffic cop to death at close range. 2012.07.03 Iraq Karbalah 8 54 Eight Shiite worshippers are sent straight to Allah by Sunni bombers at a vegetable market. 2012.07.03 Iraq Taji 3 15 Muslim bombers kill three Iraqis. 2012.07.02 Yemen Sanaa 1 0 A Yemeni is killed by a suspected al-Qaeda car bomb. 2012.07.02 Egypt Suez 1 0 A 20-year-old engineering student is stabbed to death by religious police for walking with his girlfriend. 2012.07.02 Afghanistan Kandahar 7 23 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates near the entrance of a university, killing seven students and staff. 2012.07.02 Pakistan Lalu Ali 2 0 Sipah-e-Sahaba cadres capture and behead two brothers for being Shia. 2012.07.02 Iraq Baghdad 1 8 Jihadi bombers take out a traffic cop. 2012.07.01 Iraq Baghdad 3 4 Terrorists kill three people including a judge. 2012.07.01 Afghanistan Helmand 3 0 A Taliban disguised in police uniform murders three British soldiers. 2012.07.01 Nigeria Maiduguri 9 0 Nine Christian construction workers have their throats cut by Islamists in a 'gruesome' killing. 2012.07.01 Kenya Garissa 18 66 Muslims throw grenades into two churches and then shoot fleeing Christians. Some eighteen die in the massacre, including three children.. 2012.07.01 Afghanistan Ghazni 5 11 Five women and children are ripped apart when the Taliban bomb their bus. 2012.07.01 Pakistan Faisalabad 0 1 A man is beaten and 'severely tortured' by a mob for 'defaming' prophet Muhammad with remarks. 2012.07.01 Dagestan Khasavyurt 1 0 An off-duty cop is gunned down in a Muslim drive-by.
see the problem is you can list all those killings but if you had actually read what was written there then you'd have seen that more often then not muslims kill other muslims because of differences in their beliefs or for plain power and money.
Lets take Iraq for example. The population is 60% shia and the rest are sunnis and other religions. Saddam was a sunni muslim who oppressed the shia majority and favored the sunnis. Now that Saddam is gone and the iraqi government more acurately mirrors the population sunnis start revolting because they lost their favored position. This is not about religion, religion might be a catalyst but in the end the sunni minority is scared of revenge acts from the shia and they want their old favorable positions back.
But the only thing you hear in western media is "islamist bombing here bla bla" . Deeper understanding of regional differences more often then not shows that religion is in most cases not the important factor when it comes to violence.
Not long ago catholics and protestand were bashing their skulls in northern ireland and some probably still want to continue that. But do you know any muslim who told you that christianity is violent because of the Ireland conflict? I highly doubt it.
Islam, a religion of peace and tolerance? Really, is this a fucking joke. This is like the 5th or 6th time some angry, bloodthirsty, Muslim mob have rioted and killed people, because some guy on the other side of the world insulted the Prophet and hurt their feelings.
Sam Harris, 2008:
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."
I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
On September 12 2012 19:42 ImFromPortugal wrote: U.S. ambassador to Libya, 3 others killed in rocket attack, witness says The deaths came as protesters attacked U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya and Egypt on Tuesday, angry about an online film considered offensive to Islam.
fucking lunatics and their religion. so sick and tired of hearing about (x) killing was committed because of (y) religion's beliefs.
On September 12 2012 20:49 Souma wrote: Seems I have walked into a cave of conspiracy theories and blind folds. I apologize. I will stop posting in here.
Rest in peace, Christopher Stevens and the other victims who lost their lives this day.
Much appreciated. in the meantime you could perhaps read of the Jihad attacks off Egptian soil since you obviously missed the headlines quite a few times.
I'm sorry, I just have to address this. I think you linked the wrong articles trying to prove how crazy Egypt is. Those are articles stating how the Egyptian soldiers/policemen were killed by unknown-possibly-Islamist-militants. Where's the articles about Egyptians killing Jews and Westerners?
That was last year, before their elections and a stable government came into play and without any indication that it transpired under directions from Egypt (rather, the article says right there that it was most likely due to threats coming from Gaza, the same Gaza that both Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on in 2006). So, where are these supposed terrorist attacks from Egypt ever since the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi took control?
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
That completely misses the point. World War II and the Iraq War weren't started because of religion. The US doesn't kill because they are "Christian".
Yet that's exactly what these Muslims did. They are murdering and rampaging, because their religion says that blasphemy is to be punished with death.
But keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these primitive murderers.
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
You're fucking delusional. Islam followers killed a man because someone somewhere else in the world DREW A CARTOON of their prophet.
It's entirely different situations, and if you can't see that theres's nothing that anyone can tell you to change your mind since you're delusional.
But what happens is that a christian nation is invading less developed islamic nations... Calling it "the war on terror"...
But well.. Who could ever see that backfire... ... There would need to be damn many such attacks to even make a dent compared the dead Islamic people by US hands...
Btw: On who are you gonna declare war now? "The War on bad people"?
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Christians tend to have more access to education, and killing in their religion is the biggest sin. I don't know hows things in Islam, but i know for a fact that Libya doesn't have the education quality as in Europe, for example.
On September 12 2012 21:20 Velr wrote: The US doesn't..
But what happens is that a christian nation is invading less developed islamic nations... Calling it "the war on terror"...
But well.. Who could ever see that backfire... ...
There would need to be damn many such attacks to even make a dent compared the dead Islamic people by US hands...
This is about someone insulting Muhammad, not about "the War on terror". This is about a mob of angry Muslims attacking and burning an embassy and killing 4 people because someone else hurt their feelings.
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
That completely misses the point. World War II and the Iraq War weren't started because of religion. The US doesn't kill because they are "Christian".
Yet that's exactly what these Muslims did. They are murdering and rampaging, because their religion says that blasphemy is to be punished with death.
But keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these primitive murderers.
Yeah...they are just killing people because their religion tells them to. Nothing political or economic about it.
I remember studying Islamic terrorist propaganda and though it has a small religious feel to it, that is not the main theme. How they get people to sympathize with organizations such as Al Quaeda is by talking about the horrors of Western Imperialism, sometimes true, often false, and often exaggerated should it be true, but there is more to Islamic violence than killing for the sake of religion.
And guys...I know I am guilty of this, but let's try to talk about the politics of Libya rather than the nature of Islam.
On September 12 2012 21:18 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
That completely misses the point. World War II and the Iraq War weren't started because of religion. The US doesn't kill because they are "Christian".
Yet that's exactly what these Muslims did. They are murdering and rampaging, because their religion says that blasphemy is to be punished with death.
But keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these primitive murderers.
Yeah...they are just killing people because their religion tells them to. Nothing political or economic about it.
I remember studying Islamic terrorist propaganda and though it has a small religious feel to it, that is not the main theme. How they get people to sympathize with organizations such as Al Quaeda is by talking about the horrors of Western Imperialism, sometimes true, often false, and often exaggerated should it be true, but there is more to Islamic violence than killing for the sake of religion.
And guys...I know I am guilty of this, but let's try to talk about the politics of Libya rather than the nature of Islam.
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?
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
Not one of the things you mentioned was religiously motivated. When muslim people kill someone for political reasons or in military conflicts these are not religiously motivated too. But we see obviously religiously motivated violent acts all the time, and absolute majority of them is committed by islamists.
On September 12 2012 21:00 ddrddrddrddr wrote: I'm pretty sure the only reason why Christians as a whole is less violent is because they're richer, they're more educated, and they're over all much less religious. If everybody followed their religions to the dot we'd be killing each other. That said, I hope religious could be phased out as a whole because sooner or later society will decide to take a step back because of difficult economic conditions and we have to deal with the crap all over again.
BTW violence is not the ONLY way that religion can screw society over. It's just the most significant way in the short term. Brain washing and misinformation can be more effective in the long term.
Explain me the lack of terrorism is dirt poor India. Explain me the lack of christian terrorism in Chrisitan sub-sahara Africa.
the 9-11 culprits were well edcuated. so are most terrorists.
One piece of the Krueger-Maleckova evidence involves 129 members of Hezbollah who died in action, mostly against Israel, from 1982 to 1994. Hezbollah is now designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Biographical information from the Hezbollah newspaper al-Ahd indicates that the fighters who died were, on average, more educated and less impoverished than the Lebanese population of comparable age and regional origin.
Wealth is only one of the aspects that I mentioned. Religiosity and education are also relevant. As far terrorism in India, there's a Wikipedia entry devoted to that.
When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
I bet you're even a little bit suprised that an Iraqi like me can speak english fluently, because I bet over there in America and Europe you thought we were cave dwelling freaks who deserved to die.
Iraqi's are not stupid, we had no Weapons of mass destruction, we had weapons of mass fuel conservation, Saddam Hussein was given power by the US and brought down by the US, former US ambassador April Glaspie had several talks with him, amongst them the famous Kuwait Invasion talk, in which April Glaspie states "We have no interest in your Arab-Arab conflicts" but yet they invaded Iraq anyways when Iraq attacked Kuwait.
Even if Iraqi's/Muslims (Note there are jews and christians in Iraq) were cave dwelling idiots, it doesn't take a NASA scientist to understand that the US invades countries for wealth not welfare (notice the difference) and that the zionistic fascistic new age Babylon must fall.
On September 12 2012 21:18 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
That completely misses the point. World War II and the Iraq War weren't started because of religion. The US doesn't kill because they are "Christian".
Yet that's exactly what these Muslims did. They are murdering and rampaging, because their religion says that blasphemy is to be punished with death.
But keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these primitive murderers.
Yeah...they are just killing people because their religion tells them to. Nothing political or economic about it.
I remember studying Islamic terrorist propaganda and though it has a small religious feel to it, that is not the main theme. How they get people to sympathize with organizations such as Al Quaeda is by talking about the horrors of Western Imperialism, sometimes true, often false, and often exaggerated should it be true, but there is more to Islamic violence than killing for the sake of religion.
And guys...I know I am guilty of this, but let's try to talk about the politics of Libya rather than the nature of Islam.
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.
To ignore the fact that Islam enables and "justifies" this sort of murderous rampage is to miss the elephant in the room.
I don't think it's fair to compare Islam (or any religion) to Buddhism to be honest. I must agree that there are a lot more radical Muslims than there are Christians and the like, though. But still, I believe a lot of Muslims have proper reason to be outraged.
It would be better to compare Islam to that of Christianity (the crusades) and Judaism (the systematic genocide of Palestinians). But yes, I agree overall that Muslims are generally more radical than any other religion - that much is true. It's just, the people who actually go out suicide bombing and murdering people... they are an extreme minority of crazies.
(And, just for the record, Buddhism did not inspire Japan's kamikaze attacks).
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
No excuse to defend these terrorists. I understand that it is unwise but by your logic you should never criticize muslims, communists, neonazi's etc. Because they won't think and just start killing people who critisize them.
I never defended anyone. Those are straight facts.
It is well known that simple-minded believers are unreasonable, especially islamistic ones nowadays. The christians e.g. already had their time of slaughter and killing. Therefor, one should think about what a movie can cause. No questioning the killing is as wrong as something can be wrong. But try facing unreasonable idiots with reasoning...
Yes, in a way. Try facing unreasonable idiots with reasoning. What else have you got (weapons I suppose)? But. In a way no one did this to their "face". We just practice freedom of speech. "Giving up" isn't really an option. Not trying because you know it won't work isn't a great philosophy in itself. Bunch of quitters eh? But, as with many things, there are ways to go about things smartly, and not create "hate propaganda" against islam.
Arab countries need to get rid of the fanatics otherwise as soon as oil is gone good they gonna slump lower in poverty than china and india were 50 years ago.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
The most ridiculous part of this is a quote listed on CNN from one of the protestors
"I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?"
We would go about our day and not give a single fuck. Shooting a rocket propelled grenade at the Egyptian embassy wouldn't really be on my list.
The saddest thing about this is that the pictures of the riots on CNN show that most of the protestors are young adults. This means that this problem with radical Islam isn't going away and it might get worse.
On September 12 2012 21:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:25 Shiragaku wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:18 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
That completely misses the point. World War II and the Iraq War weren't started because of religion. The US doesn't kill because they are "Christian".
Yet that's exactly what these Muslims did. They are murdering and rampaging, because their religion says that blasphemy is to be punished with death.
But keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these primitive murderers.
Yeah...they are just killing people because their religion tells them to. Nothing political or economic about it.
I remember studying Islamic terrorist propaganda and though it has a small religious feel to it, that is not the main theme. How they get people to sympathize with organizations such as Al Quaeda is by talking about the horrors of Western Imperialism, sometimes true, often false, and often exaggerated should it be true, but there is more to Islamic violence than killing for the sake of religion.
And guys...I know I am guilty of this, but let's try to talk about the politics of Libya rather than the nature of Islam.
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.
To ignore the fact that Islam enables and "justifies" this sort of murderous rampage is to miss the elephant in the room.
I don't think it's fair to compare Islam (or any religion) to Buddhism to be honest. I must agree that there are a lot more radical Muslims than there are Christians and the like, though. But still, I believe a lot of Muslims have proper reason to be outraged.
It would be better to compare Islam to that of Christianity (the crusades) and Judaism (the systematic genocide of Palestinians). But yes, I agree overall that Muslims are generally more radical than any other religion - that much is true. It's just, the people who actually go out suicide bombing and murdering people... they are an extreme minority of crazies.
(And, just for the record, Buddhism did not inspire Japan's kamikaze attacks).
You're so wrong, if a muslim does a terrorist act (Which would make him an apostasizer) it get broadcast by all news channels, but when other people committ terrorist acts we get minimal coverage of the story. Go and research a little about what's happening in Burma, "Peaceful" buddhists are slaughtering muslims, they're almost as filthy as the US government but not quite there yet, you'd have to kill a lot more innocent people to reach the Guiness World Record which is currently held by the US government and by the looks of it, no one will ever top them in killing innocents, it's just what they are good at. I blame the US citizens for not knowing how to vote for a good presidential candidate. By the way, Breivik was a christian but that has nothing to do with the violent acts he did since we muslims don't generalise like other people.
On September 12 2012 19:42 ImFromPortugal wrote: The deaths came as protesters attacked U.S. diplomatic compounds in Libya and Egypt on Tuesday, angry about an online film considered offensive to Islam.
According to youtube the trailer has been available for almost 3 months.
On September 12 2012 21:48 SgtWaffles wrote: The most ridiculous part of this is a quote listed on CNN from one of the protestors
"I just want to say, how would the Americans feel if films insulting leading Christian figures like the pope or historical figures like Abraham Lincoln were produced?"
We would go about our day and not give a single fuck. Shooting a rocket propelled grenade at the Egyptian embassy wouldn't really be on my list.
The saddest thing about this is that the pictures of the riots on CNN show that most of the protestors are young adults. This means that this problem with radical Islam isn't going away and it might get worse.
This makes me physically sick. I always belived that you can deal with islamic nations and should treat them all with respect. even more so the people who stood up and even died for freedom. But if this is what happenes in a "free nation" then we shouldn't bother with any of them. let the whole region stay in a barbaric religious dictatorship. let them stay the joke of the world and never become worth anything more then the oil that they squander away until they go back to chopping eachothers heads off. This wasn't even terrorism its just another day in the life of a barbaric arab nation.
Islam is a religion of peace my ass. insult them once and they kill people real peaceful.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
Did you take the time to think as why it is a violent religion? They are the most persecuted, insulted religion, I'm not justifying radicals, and by the way, no wonder so many idiots join the terrorists when you see people generalize their WHOLE religion because of few crazy extremists, there are 1 600 000 000 muslims on our planet, maybe, I dont know but lets say 10%, 160 millions are extremists, maybe 1 million are actively helping terrorists or are terrorists, and people still bash them ALL the time, many of their countries have been in wars, most of them disregarding civilians population, they are pictured everywhere as evil and dangerous. So yeah, they are touchy when it comes to their religion, and especially to their prophet, so leave them the fuck alone in general. Christianity gets bashed all the time? Ahaha are you fucking kidding me? No "we're not" (i'm atheist, but european so... my town must have something like 10 churchs for 100 000 people, I live in a christian based culture), our medias are constantly biased on the view of Islam and spread fear about them, focusing on the few extremists, how rare it is that we actually see something about middle east countries that isnt terrorism or war. So of course this isnt a valid reason for innocent to get killed, especially a state official who's death will only bring more trouble and negative attention, but they have another fucking culture, some might consider it medieval and idiotic, some might find it barbaric, misogynist (dont know if it's the right word), I just find it different, they evolved from a completely different situation, they live in a completely different situation, just like some regions of Africa, China, India, South America, global medias, just brought the weird concept of "one retard makes a movie insulting X, 10 millions protest and attack ambassy because of it". God damn it I'm so fucking tired of the ignorant point of view people project on muslim countries, they wont ever set a foot there, they probably never knew a muslim person, but they feel able to generalize 1.6 FUCKING BILLION people over CNN and shit like that, it is whats wrong with humanity, you have access to information, but you just choose to deny it, eat what people feed you, and run copy pasta that shit around on the internet. Bleh
Edit: Briefly checked you post history, you obviously are simply racist towards muslim and paranoid, you only post about that in every thread that is remotely related to middle east countries and Islam, well, guess I read you well the first time, keep up the hate man, only way to fight extremism is more extremism right?
I think 10% is a relativly large number here, if 10% of muslims were radical or extremist then we would have a serious problem on our hands.
However, from your post i see that you are justifying murders of innocent people because muslims are "touchy about their religion" This is not a very good excuse, all forms of extremism should be dealt with hard, and rationally i think that if a religion is against personal freedom or freedom of speech i do not think it should be allowed. The problem is that when religious slogans of killing are being praised and used in public, and that the general sense of killing is accepted within some parts of the religious Islamic people then the problem itself lies here, and it should not be "ok" and accepted the way it is today.
The world in my point of view is a lot more tolerant than it should be to extremism like this, people get tortured and killed for the smallest things because it does not fit the religious persons views, and therefore its ok to kill the person because of this.
I know that talking about religion on TL is should be done with caution and i know there are muslims on the board, i am absolutely not against religion itself, but i do not support "excuses" related to killing of innocent people and general extremism and i hope that muslims do more to show the good side of the religion and not accept things like this.
If not then people will obviously be paranoid and scared of muslims, i cant accept having to fear for my life because of another persons religious views and i hope you do the same.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
I bet you're even a little bit suprised that an Iraqi like me can speak english fluently, because I bet over there in America and Europe you thought we were cave dwelling freaks who deserved to die.
Iraqi's are not stupid, we had no Weapons of mass destruction, we had weapons of mass fuel conservation, Saddam Hussein was given power by the US and brought down by the US, former US ambassador April Glaspie had several talks with him, amongst them the famous Kuwait Invasion talk, in which April Glaspie states "We have no interest in your Arab-Arab conflicts" but yet they invaded Iraq anyways when Iraq attacked Kuwait.
Even if Iraqi's/Muslims (Note there are jews and christians in Iraq) were cave dwelling idiots, it doesn't take a NASA scientist to understand that the US invades countries for wealth not welfare (notice the difference) and that the zionistic fascistic new age Babylon must fall.
Sorry that you don't understand that I live in a free country, so I can draw any pictures of the prophet that I feel like and say anything about the prophet that I feel like. I'm free to flush any book down the toilet, including the Quran. And if I exercise my freedom to do these things I will not apologize for it.
Deal with it. Your reaction is infantile and insulting. I will call these terrorists, Muslims and Islamist because that's exactly what they are. Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary to verify that I'm using these English words correctly.
We will not apologize or back down for exercising our freedom, regardless of how butthurt you get over it.
Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. [...] Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.
If you don't understand that going on a murderous rampage is a completely unacceptable reaction to insults to your religion, then please enjoy living in the past or in an Islamic theocracy.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this.
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
YOUGOTOWNED
You realise it's actually fun to bash on religions ?
On September 12 2012 21:29 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:25 Shiragaku wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:18 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:13 redviper wrote: I bet you none of these compare with the deaths in the cultural revolution (atheists), the holocaust (christians), world war 2 (christians and atheists), or the purges (atheists).
Shit this isn't even compared to how many people the US (christians) killed in Iraq.
See anyone can come up with bullshit stats.
That completely misses the point. World War II and the Iraq War weren't started because of religion. The US doesn't kill because they are "Christian".
Yet that's exactly what these Muslims did. They are murdering and rampaging, because their religion says that blasphemy is to be punished with death.
But keep apologizing and making excuses on behalf of these primitive murderers.
Yeah...they are just killing people because their religion tells them to. Nothing political or economic about it.
I remember studying Islamic terrorist propaganda and though it has a small religious feel to it, that is not the main theme. How they get people to sympathize with organizations such as Al Quaeda is by talking about the horrors of Western Imperialism, sometimes true, often false, and often exaggerated should it be true, but there is more to Islamic violence than killing for the sake of religion.
And guys...I know I am guilty of this, but let's try to talk about the politics of Libya rather than the nature of Islam.
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.
To ignore the fact that Islam enables and "justifies" this sort of murderous rampage is to miss the elephant in the room.
I don't think it's fair to compare Islam (or any religion) to Buddhism to be honest. I must agree that there are a lot more radical Muslims than there are Christians and the like, though. But still, I believe a lot of Muslims have proper reason to be outraged.
It would be better to compare Islam to that of Christianity (the crusades) and Judaism (the systematic genocide of Palestinians). But yes, I agree overall that Muslims are generally more radical than any other religion - that much is true. It's just, the people who actually go out suicide bombing and murdering people... they are an extreme minority of crazies.
(And, just for the record, Buddhism did not inspire Japan's kamikaze attacks).
You're so wrong, if a muslim does a terrorist act (Which would make him an apostasizer) it get broadcast by all news channels, but when other people committ terrorist acts we get minimal coverage of the story. Go and research a little about what's happening in Burma, "Peaceful" buddhists are slaughtering muslims, they're almost as filthy as the US government but not quite there yet, you'd have to kill a lot more innocent people to reach the Guiness World Record which is currently held by the US government and by the looks of it, no one will ever top them in killing innocents, it's just what they are good at. I blame the US citizens for not knowing how to vote for a good presidential candidate. By the way, Breivik was a christian but that has nothing to do with the violent acts he did since we muslims don't generalise like other people.
Not sure why you're quoting me. I'm pretty much agreeing with you (aside from the fact that I believe in general Muslims are more radical in their beliefs than followers of most other religions).
I'm done with this discussion, it takes so much discussing to just make 1 person believe you, how about turning the world against the real enemy, it can't be done. American News Channels brainwash several hundred thousand people a day, I can't make that many people realise the truth in a day.
I'm just going to live my life being peaceful to everybody who is peaceful to me, however the Qur'An preaches the right for self defense so if you attack me, you best expect retaliation.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
Yep, as you say, kill the transgressors. And kill Bush.
But I thought you're against killing?
Religion of peace, my ass. More like hypocritical murderers.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this.
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
YOUGOTOWNED
It's ok, we only kill transgressors!!!!!
But just remember that anything you say (or draw) that we don't like is transgression!
I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
On September 12 2012 22:03 GT3 wrote: I'm done with this discussion, it takes so much discussing to just make 1 person believe you, how about turning the world against the real enemy, it can't be done. American News Channels brainwash several hundred thousand people a day, I can't make that many people realise the truth in a day.
I'm just going to live my life being peaceful to everybody who is peaceful to me, however the Qur'An preaches the right for self defense so if you attack me, you best expect retaliation.
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
what outrage ? any retard is free to post any retarded content over the internet get over it
that a whole mob goes nuts and rampage ambassies because of a youtube trailer just shows how much these countries are beeing manipulated
edit : you hear gay jokes all day long, make some non stop, most of movies depicting homosexuals use insulting and retarded stereotypes, yet do you ever see a gay pride armed with rocket launchers trying to riot ambassies ?
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
We would be pissed just like when someone burns out flag and says death to america over and over again. but we won't go and kill chinese people just because some indonese people said and did bad things to our pride.
Some of the comments in this thread make me sick.. I guess the consens to do something against militant islamists would be much bigger, if we would call them by their second name: nazis.
They have a lot in common. They hate jews, they claim exclusive representation, everybody else gets prosecuted, converted or killed. They are against compound interest. Also the opinion of the average muslim about them seems to be pretty trivializing, like in nazi germany in the 30's. My guess is, that without foreign intervention, the muslims in the middle east will be in for a rude awakening, if the completely over the top religious fanatics will ever seize power in their countries.
On September 12 2012 22:03 GT3 wrote: I'm done with this discussion, it takes so much discussing to just make 1 person believe you, how about turning the world against the real enemy, it can't be done. American News Channels brainwash several hundred thousand people a day, I can't make that many people realise the truth in a day.
I'm just going to live my life being peaceful to everybody who is peaceful to me, however the Qur'An preaches the right for self defense so if you attack me, you best expect retaliation.
United States of Babylon shall fall!
Run away, hypocrite.
After all, you've claimed that Islam the religion of peace, and in the same breath called for the murder of Bush and transgressors.
How brainwashed do you have to be to not see that rampaging Muslims have continuously rioted and killed people because someone has insulted their religion. Are you denying that these videoed events happened?
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
what outrage ? any retard is free to post any retarded content over the internet get over it
that a whole mob goes nuts and rampage ambassies because of a youtube trailer just shows how much these countries are beeing manipulated
edit : you hear gay jokes all day long, make some non stop, most of movies depicting homosexuals use insulting and retarded stereotypes, yet do you ever see a gay pride armed with rocket launchers trying to riot ambassies ?
Yeah, you wouldn't be saying the same if it were your parents being slandered and insulted for the whole world to see.
On September 12 2012 22:10 AngryMag wrote: RIP that really sucks
Some of the comments in this thread make me sick.. I guess the consens to do something against militant islamists would be much bigger, if we would call them by their second name: nazis.
They have a lot in common. They hate jews, they claim exclusive representation, everybody else gets prosecuted, converted or killed. They are against compound interest. Also the opinion of the average muslim about them seems to be pretty trivializing, like in nazi germany in the 30's. My guess is, that without foreign intervention, the muslims in the middle east will be in for a rude awakening, if the completely over the top religious fanatics will ever seize power in their countries.
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
what outrage ? any retard is free to post any retarded content over the internet get over it
that a whole mob goes nuts and rampage ambassies because of a youtube trailer just shows how much these countries are beeing manipulated
edit : you hear gay jokes all day long, make some non stop, most of movies depicting homosexuals use insulting and retarded stereotypes, yet do you ever see a gay pride armed with rocket launchers trying to riot ambassies ?
Yeah, you wouldn't be saying the same if it were your parents being slandered and insulted for the whole world to see.
so you believe beeing the son of an imaginary character of a 14 century old fiction?
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
prob is what you write barely makes any sense at all
Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
I bet you're even a little bit suprised that an Iraqi like me can speak english fluently, because I bet over there in America and Europe you thought we were cave dwelling freaks who deserved to die.
Iraqi's are not stupid, we had no Weapons of mass destruction, we had weapons of mass fuel conservation, Saddam Hussein was given power by the US and brought down by the US, former US ambassador April Glaspie had several talks with him, amongst them the famous Kuwait Invasion talk, in which April Glaspie states "We have no interest in your Arab-Arab conflicts" but yet they invaded Iraq anyways when Iraq attacked Kuwait.
Even if Iraqi's/Muslims (Note there are jews and christians in Iraq) were cave dwelling idiots, it doesn't take a NASA scientist to understand that the US invades countries for wealth not welfare (notice the difference) and that the zionistic fascistic new age Babylon must fall.
Sorry that you don't understand that I live in a free country, so I can draw any pictures of the prophet that I feel like and say anything about the prophet that I feel like. I'm free to flush any book down the toilet, including the Quran. And if I exercise my freedom to do these things I will not apologize for it.
Deal with it. Your reaction is infantile and insulting. I will call these terrorists, Muslims and Islamist because that's exactly what they are. Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary to verify that I'm using these English words correctly.
We will not apologize or back down for exercising our freedom, regardless of how butthurt you get over it.
Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. [...] Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.
If you don't understand that going on a murderous rampage is a completely unacceptable reaction to insults to your religion, then please enjoy living in the past or in an Islamic theocracy.
I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying you shouldn't, and there are some dangerous people out there that like to call themselves muslims that can hurt you. But I don't care about your health and well being. You will be punished by god in due time. However I am very glad that you're over there in the island called Australia far away from me the purity and sanctity of mekka.
On September 12 2012 19:53 redviper wrote: Its completely over the top to call the militants terrorists.
Also this is what comes from supporting the rebels in order to profit from oil.
Why? Shooting rockets at an embassy and executing civilians witnesses is a militant act? No that's terroris my friend.
But bombing the Ghadafi troops along with civilians were humanitarian bombings to spread democracy around the world.
What hipocrisy americans have. I just don't get how such smart people like americans can be so ignorant about some other things, why don't you stop 5 seconds to think before writing that. Think: Libia is a country that recently was bombared by the west, some people are really going to hate you, not because of your life style or because some other dumb reason about Mohammed or whatever, the true is they hate you for bombing them, period, now this is what happends when they get the chance of attacking back. Terrorism, humanitarian bombings, militias, peace troops, it's all the same, to them the american army are the terrorists and their militias are their brave military fighting for their freedom.
On September 12 2012 21:57 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
I bet you're even a little bit suprised that an Iraqi like me can speak english fluently, because I bet over there in America and Europe you thought we were cave dwelling freaks who deserved to die.
Iraqi's are not stupid, we had no Weapons of mass destruction, we had weapons of mass fuel conservation, Saddam Hussein was given power by the US and brought down by the US, former US ambassador April Glaspie had several talks with him, amongst them the famous Kuwait Invasion talk, in which April Glaspie states "We have no interest in your Arab-Arab conflicts" but yet they invaded Iraq anyways when Iraq attacked Kuwait.
Even if Iraqi's/Muslims (Note there are jews and christians in Iraq) were cave dwelling idiots, it doesn't take a NASA scientist to understand that the US invades countries for wealth not welfare (notice the difference) and that the zionistic fascistic new age Babylon must fall.
Sorry that you don't understand that I live in a free country, so I can draw any pictures of the prophet that I feel like and say anything about the prophet that I feel like. I'm free to flush any book down the toilet, including the Quran. And if I exercise my freedom to do these things I will not apologize for it.
Deal with it. Your reaction is infantile and insulting. I will call these terrorists, Muslims and Islamist because that's exactly what they are. Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary to verify that I'm using these English words correctly.
We will not apologize or back down for exercising our freedom, regardless of how butthurt you get over it.
Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger - Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment. [...] Accursed wherever they are found, [being] seized and massacred completely.
If you don't understand that going on a murderous rampage is a completely unacceptable reaction to insults to your religion, then please enjoy living in the past or in an Islamic theocracy.
I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm saying you shouldn't, and there are some dangerous people out there that like to call themselves muslims that can hurt you. But I don't care about your health and well being. You will be punished by god in due time. However I am very glad that you're over there in the island called Australia far away from me the purity and sanctity of mekka.
you're hilarious you just sound like a monty python movie
On September 12 2012 19:53 redviper wrote: Its completely over the top to call the militants terrorists.
Also this is what comes from supporting the rebels in order to profit from oil.
Why? Shooting rockets at an embassy and executing civilians witnesses is a militant act? No that's terroris my friend.
But bombing the Ghadafi troops along with civilians were humanitarian bombings to spread democracy around the world.
What hipocrisy americans have. I just don't get how such smart people like americans can be so ignorant about some other things, why don't you stop 5 seconds to think before writing that. Think: Libia is a country that recently was bombared by the west, some people are really going to hate you, not because of your life style or because some other dumb reason about Mohammed or whatever, the true is they hate you for bombing them, period, now this is what happends when they get the chance of attacking back. Terrorism, humanitarian bombings, militias, peace troops, it's all the same, to them the american army are the terrorists and their militias are their brave military fighting for their freedom.
Northen french cities pretty much got destroyed by american / english bombs, yet we didn't hate them that much for that. And trust me it was much more hardcore than what happened in lybia.
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
Myself and others in this thread have already mentioned this - the Quran does not promote murderous rampages aside from self-defense. There is nowhere in the Quran that states that the drawing of the Prophet should be met with a death sentence. Once again, the people who go out on murder sprees and suicide bombing are small groups of fanatics.
And you know what, screw freedom of speech. It's an entirely Western principle. When you can't even respect the principles of another culture, how can you expect them to respect yours? A drawing of Muhammad may not be enough to justify murder and violence, but people have a right to be mad.
We live in a period where opposing cultures keep stepping on each other's toes. Nobody tries to actually understand. It's just a bunch of ignorance and bigotry.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
Yep, as you say, kill the transgressors. And kill Bush.
But I thought you're against killing?
Religion of peace, my ass. More like hypocritical murderers.
As I said, the Quran preaches self defense, George W. Bush killed over 500 000 innocent Iraqi civilians and hurt many more. (www.iraqibodycount.org) this is a list of confirmed kills, uncorfimed kills estimates are 500 000-1 Million, and let's not talk about Abu Ghraib, the prison torture and humiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians.
It seems that you're either a dyslectic or have a minor reading problem, I said the Qur'An teaches self defense, the least we can do is kill Bush, or would you rather 500 000 - 1 Million Australian or American civilians dying, the Qur'an preaches eye for an eye, but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
On September 12 2012 22:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:12 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
Myself and others in this thread have already mentioned this - the Quran does not promote murderous rampages aside from self-defense. There is nowhere in the Quran that states that the drawing of the Prophet should be met with a death sentence. Once again, the people who go out on murder sprees and suicide bombing are small groups of fanatics.
And you know what, screw freedom of speech. It's an entirely Western principle. When you can't even respect the principles of another culture, how can you expect them to respect yours? A drawing of Muhammad may not be enough to justify murder and violence, but people have a right to be mad.
We live in a period where opposing cultures keep stepping on each other's toes. Nobody tries to actually understand. It's just a bunch of ignorance and bigotry.
On September 12 2012 19:53 redviper wrote: Its completely over the top to call the militants terrorists.
Also this is what comes from supporting the rebels in order to profit from oil.
Why? Shooting rockets at an embassy and executing civilians witnesses is a militant act? No that's terroris my friend.
But bombing the Ghadafi troops along with civilians were humanitarian bombings to spread democracy around the world.
What hipocrisy americans have. I just don't get how such smart people like americans can be so ignorant about some other things, why don't you stop 5 seconds to think before writing that. Think: Libia is a country that recently was bombared by the west, some people are really going to hate you, not because of your life style or because some other dumb reason about Mohammed or whatever, the true is they hate you for bombing them, period, now this is what happends when they get the chance of attacking back. Terrorism, humanitarian bombings, militias, peace troops, it's all the same, to them the american army are the terrorists and their militias are their brave military fighting for their freedom.
so what you're saying is. These people think that when he helped them free themselves from a military dictator and without said help they would be slaughtered continually. and they think that we're still the bad guys? and you are telling me that I should have respect for these people? They invaded our land and killed our people for what the dutch did. What do you want us to take from that?
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this.
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
YOUGOTOWNED
It's ok, we only kill transgressors!!!!!
But just remember that anything you say (or draw) that we don't like is transgression!
It depends how you interpret the Quran some scholars may disagree with each other about the interpretation of this verse, but the way I see it, this verse preaches self defense and the right to kill enemies (people who want to kill you) The world isn't sunshine and rainbows, neither is it singing kumbaya my lord around a campfire. This world is disgusting, and you're one of the main contributors :D
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
Oh man I got owned so hard, I think that if my religion spewed hatred, such like that of Islam, that I have enough substance to kill you now and be praised in the afterlife?
If you use the same tactics as those who oppose you, then you are just as bad as them.
I find it amazing you think my brain is simpleton. You believe that sugar mixes with water because Allah allows it to. If you don't believe that you're not a true follower of Islam. Are you a true follower of Islam?
The Christian religion does NOT advocate killing of those who oppose you, it preaches love to your enemy. I'm not even fucking religious, I think they're all bad, but I call a spade a spade.
This just shows that the "extemists" are not brought to justice from normal followers like you - because you think that ther actions are righteous.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this.
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
YOUGOTOWNED
It's ok, we only kill transgressors!!!!!
But just remember that anything you say (or draw) that we don't like is transgression!
It depends how you interpret the Quran some scholars may disagree with each other about the interpretation of this verse, but the way I see it, this verse preaches self defense and the right to kill enemies (people who want to kill you) The world isn't sunshine and rainbows, neither is it singing kumbaya my lord around a campfire. This world is disgusting, and you're one of the main contributors :D
And what about people live without trying to interpret a 1400 years old fiction that barely makes any sense in modern times?
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
If you're talking about the quote made on page 4, it was taken completely out of context.
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (al-Baqarah 2:190-194)
0.001% of Muslim population would like to bomb the hell out of America. This 0.001% are motivated by their interpretations of the Quran. Hence, the Quran is an evil book that preaches violence, and all Muslims are violent people. Is this your logic? You're free to exercise your "freedom of speech" but I'm just saying you are pretty much embarrassing yourself with your hateful posts, pal.
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
Islam is the true religion, unchanged from it's original message unlike the Tora and the Bible. They were both written by man. They had the same message as Islam but if 20 people stand in a line and each one whispers into the person infront of him a verse, it may sound completly different when it reaches the final destination.
Islam is the true religion repent or suffer in the hereafter, unless you have done good deeds and believed in god, then you will be rewarded.
On September 12 2012 22:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:12 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
If you're talking about the quote made on page 4, it was taken completely out of context.
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (al-Baqarah 2:190-194)
0.001% of Muslim population would like to bomb the hell out of America. This 0.001% are motivated by their interpretations of the Quran. Hence, the Quran is an evil book that preaches violence, and all Muslims are violent people. Is this your logic? You're free to exercise your "freedom of speech" but I'm just saying you are pretty much embarrassing yourself with your hateful posts, pal.
Problem is that theocracies are held by these 0.001% that may want to force to whole rest to actually follow their crazy speeches based on a book. Just like mein kampf
On September 12 2012 22:31 GT3 wrote: Islam is the true religion, unchanged from it's original message unlike the Tora and the Bible. They were both written by man. They had the same message as Islam but if 20 people stand in a line and each one whispers into the person infront of him a verse, it may sound completly different when it reaches the final destination.
Islam is the true religion repent or suffer in the hereafter, unless you have done good deeds and believed in god, then you will be rewarded.
On September 12 2012 22:05 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:56 GT3 wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:47 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
Yep, as you say, kill the transgressors. And kill Bush.
But I thought you're against killing?
Religion of peace, my ass. More like hypocritical murderers.
As I said, the Quran preaches self defense, George W. Bush killed over 500 000 innocent Iraqi civilians and hurt many more. (www.iraqibodycount.org) this is a list of confirmed kills, uncorfimed kills estimates are 500 000-1 Million, and let's not talk about Abu Ghraib, the prison torture and humiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians.
It seems that you're either a dyslectic or have a minor reading problem, I said the Qur'An teaches self defense, the least we can do is kill Bush, or would you rather 500 000 - 1 Million Australian or American civilians dying, the Qur'an preaches eye for an eye, but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
Self defense is kill or be killed. If you kill Bush, it's not going to stop the War in Iraq. So how is that self defense. It's not? It's vengeance.
And what about the transgressors that you want to kill. Keep digging yourself deeper in a whole. All you've done is give excuses for murder. But keep saying Islam is a religion of peace. All your talk about killing people is really convincing me about just how peaceful Islam is.
On September 12 2012 19:53 redviper wrote: Its completely over the top to call the militants terrorists.
Also this is what comes from supporting the rebels in order to profit from oil.
Why? Shooting rockets at an embassy and executing civilians witnesses is a militant act? No that's terroris my friend.
But bombing the Ghadafi troops along with civilians were humanitarian bombings to spread democracy around the world.
What hipocrisy americans have. I just don't get how such smart people like americans can be so ignorant about some other things, why don't you stop 5 seconds to think before writing that. Think: Libia is a country that recently was bombared by the west, some people are really going to hate you, not because of your life style or because some other dumb reason about Mohammed or whatever, the true is they hate you for bombing them, period, now this is what happends when they get the chance of attacking back. Terrorism, humanitarian bombings, militias, peace troops, it's all the same, to them the american army are the terrorists and their militias are their brave military fighting for their freedom.
Northen french cities pretty much got destroyed by american / english bombs, yet we didn't hate them that much for that. And trust me it was much more hardcore than what happened in lybia.
He says Libia, you say Lybia, where does it end? =(. Edit: And again below me. It's Libya!
Anyway, extremists... killing people at random... You'd expect such radical things would only be done if it fucking accomplished something, but I guess you can't expect them to be rational.
On September 12 2012 22:28 HeeroFX wrote: I feel like this could lead to war.
stuff like this doesn't lead to war from reasonable and countries that have any real standing in the world. If anything this will just cause america to never help lybia again until they apologize for it.
we acidentaly bombed the chinese embassy in serbia when we were preventing a genocide and china didn't do anything to provoke a war with us.
On September 12 2012 22:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:12 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
If you're talking about the quote made on page 4, it was taken completely out of context.
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (al-Baqarah 2:190-194)
0.001% of Muslim population would like to bomb the hell out of America. This 0.001% are motivated by their interpretations of the Quran. Hence, the Quran is an evil book that preaches violence, and all Muslims are violent people. Is this your logic? You're free to exercise your "freedom of speech" but I'm just saying you are pretty much embarrassing yourself with your hateful posts, pal.
Well said mon frere, j'ai parlez un peu francais, etudiant au francois au lycée
On September 12 2012 22:28 HeeroFX wrote: I feel like this could lead to war.
stuff like this doesn't lead to war from reasonable and countries that have any real standing in the world. If anything this will just cause america to never help lybia again until they apologize for it.
we acidentaly bombed the chinese embassy in serbia when we were preventing a genocide and china didn't do anything to provoke a war with us.
they don't need your "help" anymore.. i think you have done enough to destroy their country.
On September 12 2012 22:16 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:12 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:08 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 Souma wrote: I mean, honestly, people, what if it was your mom or dad people were broadcasting on television and publicly slandering and insulting? Would it be so fun then? I'm in no way justifying the murder of the Ambassador and other innocents, but you have to at least understand the general outrage against such things.
No.
How often do people kill and rampage in the US, because their parents are insulted on national TV?
There is no justification for this. Stop making excuses for these primitive, religious nuts.
No, we don't have to kill and rampage - we can sue people. But we're outraged nonetheless. We just don't kill people. But you admit, you wouldn't be too happy with it. And I did not justify the murders - read what I wrote. Thanks.
Then what's your point? The fact that they can justify going on a murderous rampage is tied directly to the tenets of Islam. There have been quotes given in the previous page. The fact is Islam is a religion that enables it's followers to justify going on a murderous rampage like this.
If you're talking about the quote made on page 4, it was taken completely out of context.
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.” (al-Baqarah 2:190-194)
0.001% of Muslim population would like to bomb the hell out of America. This 0.001% are motivated by their interpretations of the Quran. Hence, the Quran is an evil book that preaches violence, and all Muslims are violent people. Is this your logic? You're free to exercise your "freedom of speech" but I'm just saying you are pretty much embarrassing yourself with your hateful posts, pal.
Problem is that theocracies are held by these 0.001% that may want to force to whole rest to actually follow their crazy speeches based on a book. Just like mein kampf
That would only happen if people continue to follow these stereotypes blindly. Even the Muslim population recognizes that this 0.001% are heretics and have condemned their actions. Why can't some non-Muslims do the same? Ironic isn't it?
Anyway, this thread is already filled with hate. I hope people will wake up and realize that they aren't doing anything constructive towards a more peaceful future.
Edit: On topic, this event is extremely saddening, and I admire the courage of people working in these turbulent areas.
On September 12 2012 22:28 HeeroFX wrote: I feel like this could lead to war.
stuff like this doesn't lead to war from reasonable and countries that have any real standing in the world. If anything this will just cause america to never help lybia again until they apologize for it.
we acidentaly bombed the chinese embassy in serbia when we were preventing a genocide and china didn't do anything to provoke a war with us.
While i would agree that this won't lead to war... There have been wars started over smaller incidents (but with bigger possible gains in the back)..
On September 12 2012 22:05 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:56 GT3 wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:47 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
Yep, as you say, kill the transgressors. And kill Bush.
But I thought you're against killing?
Religion of peace, my ass. More like hypocritical murderers.
As I said, the Quran preaches self defense, George W. Bush killed over 500 000 innocent Iraqi civilians and hurt many more. (www.iraqibodycount.org) this is a list of confirmed kills, uncorfimed kills estimates are 500 000-1 Million, and let's not talk about Abu Ghraib, the prison torture and humiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians.
It seems that you're either a dyslectic or have a minor reading problem, I said the Qur'An teaches self defense, the least we can do is kill Bush, or would you rather 500 000 - 1 Million Australian or American civilians dying, the Qur'an preaches eye for an eye, but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
Self defense is kill or be killed. If you kill Bush, it's not going to stop the War in Iraq. So how is that self defense. It's not? It's vengeance.
And what about the transgressors that you want to kill. Keep digging yourself deeper in a whole. All you've done is give excuses for murder. But keep saying Islam is a religion of peace. All your talk about killing people is really convincing me about just how peaceful Islam is.
If someone tried to kill me, you best believe I would try to kill them. Bush killed many hundred thousands, and he must pay for it with his blood, some choose to forgive as the way of the qur'an and some choose to take revenge. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is in the bible aswell. The war in Iraq is already over, they took all barrels of oil and overthrew our king Saddam Hussein to make the country fall like a domino, and like that isn't enough they appointed a Kurdish president, same with Saddam's trial, they appointed 3 different kurdish judges, like it's hard to find a 100% Iraqi these days. I'm not digging myself deeper, my arguments are simply better than yours, you feel like you're winning this discussion because everything I say goes into one ear and goes out the next, you're comfortable with being ignorant, that's your problem.
To be honest I think it is quite the pig-headed attitude about the mohammed drawings. 20% of the world wishes you to not do it, why not just grant them the wish? Of course the muslim reaction is also retarded though.
You could be out drinking in a bar and of course exercise your right to make fun of somebody, it's a free country after all. Then he might proceed to kick your teeth in, which at the end will end him in court and you in a hospital. Now you can be like "fuck yeah I'm living in a free country" or you could just realize that it might be a retarded idea to make fun of him.
Besides in this case the movie is hardly the reason, it's just a trigger. Despite the sun burning on their heads all day long the people over there have common reason too. I think everybody knows why it is an understandable idea for people in that region to kill someone representing the US government. You might condemn the action but nobody with at least a little political knowledge would say that he doesn't understand why. I think hardly any of the attacks have anything to do with religion. It is not the source of motivation, it just give absolution for your actions and it is easier on your consciousness. It is a lot less insane to murder someone because you think or convince yourself that this is gods wish, then it is to murder someone because that is your presidents wish for strategic and economical reasons.
GT3 is obviously a troll guys. Stop feeding him. He'll get banned as soon as a mod comes online and sees the reports.
Hes useing the eye for an eye quote. which anyone that knows anything about the passage knows was just jesus saying you shouldn't go kill 4 people and invade someones embassy just because someone from another country said something bad about your religious person.
1) People have to sit around and make cartoons/make fun of someone's religion. Do they seriously have nothing better to do?
2) People that feel that have been made fun of get all pissed off about it and start killing people because of it. It isn't very hard to just shrug it off and go on with life. Do they seriously have nothing better to do as well?
On September 12 2012 22:39 Sermokala wrote: GT3 is obviously a troll guys. Stop feeding him. He'll get banned as soon as a mod comes online and sees the reports.
Hes useing the eye for an eye quote. which anyone that knows anything about the passage knows was just jesus saying you shouldn't go kill 4 people and invade someones embassy just because someone from another country said something bad about your religious person.
Agreed, I actually took him seriously for a while, but after reading his last 5-6 replies he's blatently trolling
On September 12 2012 22:40 Djzapz wrote: I think it takes a certain level of maturity to accept to be made fun of without gunning down innocent men.
Takes as much maturity not to insult another person's livelihood.
So you're saying insulting someone's "livelihood" and killing innocent men are essentially similar infractions?
My beliefs get insulted all day and I don't go berserk for it. I acknowledge that people will say things and some of them will be against me. Notably religious people oftentimes tell me that I'll go to hell and many of them seem to actually like the idea of me in what they seem to call eternal torment, is that not insulting my "livelyhood"? So by your reasoning, how am I not justified in crossing the street and killing some bystander out of rage? I don't even need to know who it is, I'll just kill them because some other people make fun of me.
On September 12 2012 22:43 Poltergeist- wrote: I just boggles my mind that:
1) People have to sit around and make cartoons/make fun of someone's religion. Do they seriously have nothing better to do?
2) People that feel that have been made fun of get all pissed off about it and start killing people because of it. It isn't very hard to just shrug it off and go on with life. Do they seriously have nothing better to do as well?
To be fair people bash Christianity all the time with various ways of doing it. the muslums have a problem with people drawing their religious guy so ofc people are going to draw it to insult them and to provoke them into doing stupid things to make them look worse and worse as time goes on.
On September 12 2012 22:03 GT3 wrote: I'm done with this discussion, it takes so much discussing to just make 1 person believe you, how about turning the world against the real enemy, it can't be done. American News Channels brainwash several hundred thousand people a day, I can't make that many people realise the truth in a day.
I'm just going to live my life being peaceful to everybody who is peaceful to me, however the Qur'An preaches the right for self defense so if you attack me, you best expect retaliation.
United States of Babylon shall fall!
This brainwashed Muslim thinks that his people killing innocent people is ok. Didn't you just say your religion was based on not killing the innocent and harming animals or somesh*t?
I hope we take action to the killing of a Ambassador, can't just let this slide.
On September 12 2012 22:40 Djzapz wrote: I think it takes a certain level of maturity to accept to be made fun of without gunning down innocent men.
Takes as much maturity not to insult another person's livelihood.
So you're saying insulting someone's "livelihood" and killing innocent men are essentially similar infractions?
My beliefs get insulted all day and I don't go berserk for it. I acknowledge that people will say things and some of them will be against me. Notably religious people oftentimes tell me that I'll go to hell and many of them seem to actually like the idea of me in what they seem to call eternal torment, is that not insulting my "livelyhood"? So by your reasoning, how am I not justified in crossing the street and killing some bystander out of rage? I don't even need to know who it is, I'll just kill them because some other people make fun of me.
If you've read anything I've posted in this thread, you would know that I have repeatedly said that drawing Muhammad does not warrant the deaths of anyone. What I'm saying is, people have a right to be pissed; they do not, however, have the right to murder.
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nothing else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
On September 12 2012 22:40 Djzapz wrote: I think it takes a certain level of maturity to accept to be made fun of without gunning down innocent men.
Takes as much maturity not to insult another person's livelihood.
So you're saying insulting someone's "livelihood" and killing innocent men are essentially similar infractions?
My beliefs get insulted all day and I don't go berserk for it. I acknowledge that people will say things and some of them will be against me. Notably religious people oftentimes tell me that I'll go to hell and many of them seem to actually like the idea of me in what they seem to call eternal torment, is that not insulting my "livelyhood"? So by your reasoning, how am I not justified in crossing the street and killing some bystander out of rage? I don't even need to know who it is, I'll just kill them because some other people make fun of me.
If you've read anything I've posted in this thread, you would know that I have repeatedly said that drawing Muhammad does not warrant the deaths of anyone. What I'm saying is, people have a right to be pissed; they do not, however, have the right to murder.
Well you did equate the immaturity of murdering innocents to that of drawing Muhammad - which in my sense is pretty messed up. But then again I'm one of those people who think freedom of speech should allow people to make jokes and criticize, even harshly, absolutely anything.
It's unfortunate that there are still people who can't deal with that.
US President Obama to give 10:35 am ET statement on killing of US ambassador's death; Sec Clinton to attend US officials tell @NBCNews that State Department has requested additional units of Marines be airlifted to Libya to bolster security at US embassy
................................ Israeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
On September 12 2012 22:40 Djzapz wrote: I think it takes a certain level of maturity to accept to be made fun of without gunning down innocent men.
Takes as much maturity not to insult another person's livelihood.
So you're saying insulting someone's "livelihood" and killing innocent men are essentially similar infractions?
My beliefs get insulted all day and I don't go berserk for it. I acknowledge that people will say things and some of them will be against me. Notably religious people oftentimes tell me that I'll go to hell and many of them seem to actually like the idea of me in what they seem to call eternal torment, is that not insulting my "livelyhood"? So by your reasoning, how am I not justified in crossing the street and killing some bystander out of rage? I don't even need to know who it is, I'll just kill them because some other people make fun of me.
If you've read anything I've posted in this thread, you would know that I have repeatedly said that drawing Muhammad does not warrant the deaths of anyone. What I'm saying is, people have a right to be pissed; they do not, however, have the right to murder.
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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.
Apparently these killings were a reaction to this ridiculous, hilariously bad film released yesterday. Freedom of speech will never happen in the middle east.
On September 12 2012 22:32 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:26 GT3 wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:05 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:56 GT3 wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:47 Silidons wrote:
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard.
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
Yep, as you say, kill the transgressors. And kill Bush.
But I thought you're against killing?
Religion of peace, my ass. More like hypocritical murderers.
As I said, the Quran preaches self defense, George W. Bush killed over 500 000 innocent Iraqi civilians and hurt many more. (www.iraqibodycount.org) this is a list of confirmed kills, uncorfimed kills estimates are 500 000-1 Million, and let's not talk about Abu Ghraib, the prison torture and humiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians.
It seems that you're either a dyslectic or have a minor reading problem, I said the Qur'An teaches self defense, the least we can do is kill Bush, or would you rather 500 000 - 1 Million Australian or American civilians dying, the Qur'an preaches eye for an eye, but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
Self defense is kill or be killed. If you kill Bush, it's not going to stop the War in Iraq. So how is that self defense. It's not? It's vengeance.
And what about the transgressors that you want to kill. Keep digging yourself deeper in a whole. All you've done is give excuses for murder. But keep saying Islam is a religion of peace. All your talk about killing people is really convincing me about just how peaceful Islam is.
If someone tried to kill me, you best believe I would try to kill them. Bush killed many hundred thousands, and he must pay for it with his blood, some choose to forgive as the way of the qur'an and some choose to take revenge. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is in the bible aswell. The war in Iraq is already over, they took all barrels of oil and overthrew our king Saddam Hussein to make the country fall like a domino, and like that isn't enough they appointed a Kurdish president, same with Saddam's trial, they appointed 3 different kurdish judges, like it's hard to find a 100% Iraqi these days. I'm not digging myself deeper, my arguments are simply better than yours, you feel like you're winning this discussion because everything I say goes into one ear and goes out the next, you're comfortable with being ignorant, that's your problem.
Except Bush isn't trying to kill you, because he's not President. And so killing him now is vengeance, not self-defense. Stop being wrong.
So what is it? Religion of peace or religion of vengeance and murder?
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
On September 12 2012 23:00 Meta wrote: Might want to add this to the OP:
Apparently these killings were a reaction to this ridiculous, hilariously bad film released yesterday. Freedom of speech will never happen in the middle east.
On September 12 2012 20:19 ELA wrote: And on september fucking 11th as well... Im not american, but im fuming right now... Did you guys see the pictures of your half naked ambassador being dragged around by a mob??
Faith in the Arab Spring = gone
The Arab spring was fostered almost entirely by the Muslim Brotherhood I don't know how anyone could be surprised.
On September 12 2012 19:53 redviper wrote: Its completely over the top to call the militants terrorists.
Also this is what comes from supporting the rebels in order to profit from oil.
Why? Shooting rockets at an embassy and executing civilians witnesses is a militant act? No that's terroris my friend.
But bombing the Ghadafi troops along with civilians were humanitarian bombings to spread democracy around the world.
What hipocrisy americans have. I just don't get how such smart people like americans can be so ignorant about some other things, why don't you stop 5 seconds to think before writing that. Think: Libia is a country that recently was bombared by the west, some people are really going to hate you, not because of your life style or because some other dumb reason about Mohammed or whatever, the true is they hate you for bombing them, period, now this is what happends when they get the chance of attacking back. Terrorism, humanitarian bombings, militias, peace troops, it's all the same, to them the american army are the terrorists and their militias are their brave military fighting for their freedom.
so what you're saying is. These people think that when he helped them free themselves from a military dictator and without said help they would be slaughtered continually. and they think that we're still the bad guys? and you are telling me that I should have respect for these people? They invaded our land and killed our people for what the dutch did. What do you want us to take from that?
Yes that's exactly what i'm saying. Its not what you think, you or your country is not the center of the universe. If they think you are the bad guy it doesn't matter if you are or not because that's still what they think. In war there is no such a thing as a bad guy or a good guy, at least most of the time. Ghadafi sure was good to some of them and bad for some of them, just like the american army is good for some of them and bad for some of them. Judging what they do from your own holier-than-thou perspective is ridicolous, they did what they did because they hate america, because of the bombings. Only an idiot would believe that they killed an ambassador because of some dumb movie, the movie was just the spark to ignite the gasoline that was the bombings and civil war they recently had. Its ironic they would really hate Ghadafi if the US/Nato didn't intervene, now they hate you and he was a good friend of the west selling all the oil europe wanted anyways.
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Sometimes I find it funny that people quote the Quran when the bible/ Torah is vastly more violent than it. Care to quote our own bible?
On September 12 2012 20:19 ELA wrote: And on september fucking 11th as well... Im not american, but im fuming right now... Did you guys see the pictures of your half naked ambassador being dragged around by a mob??
Faith in the Arab Spring = gone
The Arab spring was fostered almost entirely by the Muslim Brotherhood I don't know how anyone could be surprised.
What were you expecting when an angry mob overthrows a mostly secular head of state, in a country of Muslims?
Somehow I doubt that this would have happened if there was a tyrant, like Mubarak or Gaddafi, to keep these rampaging Islamists occupied.
I'm fine with funny videos but when the director's spouting hate-speech like that it's clearly more than a satire. The Israeli director deserves some of the blame for this.
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
On September 12 2012 23:13 Scarecrow wrote: I'm fine with funny videos but when the director's spouting hate-speech like that it's clearly more than a satire. The Israeli director deserves some of the blame for this.
Funny you exercise your right to free speech to denounce someone else's.
On another note, don't we have some drones in the area ? Crowds of assholes make swell targets.
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nothing else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
To answer your question simply, no, Islam is not more forcefully intolerant and hateful. All these acts of terrorism, suicide bombings, murders were never completely religious in nature. There are always political and economical reasons behind every attack, every war.
I condemn this act of violence, but unlike you, I condemn the heretics who actually committed the attacks, not the entire religion of Islam. Why are you suddenly getting on your moral high horse there? Do you think that with your hate filled posts and stereotyping, you are actually helping the situation? You're actually doing the exact opposite and causing religious friction for no reason.
On September 12 2012 21:39 GT3 wrote: When talking about terrorists refrain from using the terms "Muslim" or "Islamist" the Qur'An clearly states that you are not allowed to harm innocents, suicide or even harm animals. But you're so brainwashed by your propaganda news channels that the illuminati happily provides for you. We ask one thing, and that is that you do not draw pictures of our prophets, the same with Jesus (Peace be upon him) who is also a muslim prophet, and Moses (PBUH) aswell. But no you get your facts about islam from anti-islam sites and propaganda channels, have you ever given it a thought that you could do research yourself and find the exact verses as they are in the Qur'An (www.quran.com)
I don't see you talking about Breivik here, but I guess that's just because he has blonde hair and no beard. Besides when depicting arabs stop drawing turbans on our heads, we don't wear turbans, that's what hindus do, just proves how uninformed you really are.
So because someone draws a picture of the prophet, that means you can riot in the streets in outrage?
Well this didn't take long for me to find: "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." -Qur'an 2:191
Well it didn't take you long to make yourself look like a fool because you just pulled a verse out of context, you need to look at the entire Sura, "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." 2:190. I agree that you should kill transgressors any day, among them George W. Bush, and yes we muslims don't go around drawing pictures of other religions prophets, why should we experience this?
You just got refuted so hard. Freedom == humanity
Edit ; Since you just pulled a verse out of context, I'm going to type out the context so your simpleton brain can understand, mmkay?
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
there's more but this give you a little more picture, pulling it out of context makes it seem like we muslims should kill everyone, but this verse is referring to transgressors.
Islam preaches self defense and forgiveness, either one of the two. God dislikes attackers and bullies, therefore you should not violate any innocent. However in war you don't hand out flowers, so if someone transgresses in war of course you should kill him, what would you suggest, giving him a massage?
YOUGOTOWNED
I understand and can agree with everything you say, except for the drawing of pictures. Why should you suffer pictures like that? Well. You should. Simple as that. Freedom to draw a picture. If you do not like it, do not look at it. But this is basic freedom and you cannot argue it away with religion. Nor should you defend or bring about the end of freedom. I cannot agree with that. You should tolerate, if you can't accept, that people are different. And expressing freedom through "art" does not transgress upon you in any way. Not like they're shoving the picture down your throat. If you feel that expressing basic freedoms is transgressing against you, then we simply have a problem. I'd say you were being irrational. You could claim to be religiously correct. Well. I will still want to have my freedom, and feel that you should mind your own business.
E: This is where you lose me and most other westeners. We've done nothing to you, yet "you" express hate towards "us" (and murder) over a few pictures, a few expressions of freedom. So when you spread hate over other things, like innocents dying, we simply feel that "we've seen it all before" and "oh, that's how they react to everything". While in "fact" one is you transgressing upon freedom, and the other is "us" transgressing on humanity.
Imo they are equally bad.
I have no interest in drawing muslim prophets. But I will fight for freedom. Now it's up to you if you wish to transgress upon my freedom.
To me, what is happening, are two completely different things. To you they seem to be one and the same. But you will never have our freedom without a fight. So either you accept this, or come at us, bro' :p
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nothing else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
To answer your question simply, no, Islam is not more forcefully intolerant and hateful. All these acts of terrorism, suicide bombings, murders were never completely religious in nature. There are always political and economical reasons behind every attack, every war.
I condemn this act of violence, but unlike you, I condemn the heretics who actually committed the attacks, not the entire religion of Islam. Why are you suddenly getting on your moral high horse there? Do you think that with your hate filled posts and stereotyping, you are actually helping the situation? You're actually doing the exact opposite and causing religious friction for no reason.
Multiple levels of motivation. For example if your religion tells you to kill someone, and you like the person, you may not do so. Vice versa if you want to kill someone but your religion says no, you may not do so. If you want to do it, and your religion says it's okay, not only do you want to do it, now you should do it. So yes, religion is not usually the sole cause but it can act as a catalyst nontheless.
On September 12 2012 23:25 CajunMan wrote: Sure its a small majority but polls among Muslims in the past show support for terrorist organizations in a majority of the population.
What? No. That's totally bull unless it's the Palestinians. Show me the polls.
On September 12 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:00 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
Also, I've read the context in the Quran. But feel free to put those quotes in context for me and prove me wrong. I bet you didn't even think before you wrote that I pulled those quotes out of context. Saying someone pulled something out of context is a kneejerk reaction. Tell me, in what context are those quotes acceptable?
On September 12 2012 23:25 CajunMan wrote: Sure its a small majority but polls among Muslims in the past show support for terrorist organizations in a majority of the population.
What? No. That's totally bull unless it's the Palestinians. Show me the polls.
On September 12 2012 23:03 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:00 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
Israel vs Palestine is very unrelated to attacks on freedom of speech...
It's a travesty in itself, and I doubt any of you or me would act differently if your home country was suddenly taken from you. In fact, history shows that just about anyone will fight their oppressors on some level. Who are you to judge anyone standing up for themselves?
As for Israel, well, I guess they make a good arguement too, but it's not like they're looking to make peace. They just want to take more. And personally I do not care what their religion tells them. They should still try to be better, even if their version of God is flawed. But the war has escalated beyond this, and so what I say makes no sense anymore.
On September 12 2012 23:25 CajunMan wrote: Sure its a small majority but polls among Muslims in the past show support for terrorist organizations in a majority of the population.
What? No. That's totally bull unless it's the Palestinians. Show me the polls.
Where are the "moderate" Muslim condemning these murderous Muslims?
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."
On September 12 2012 23:25 CajunMan wrote: Sure its a small majority but polls among Muslims in the past show support for terrorist organizations in a majority of the population.
What? No. That's totally bull unless it's the Palestinians. Show me the polls.
Where are the "moderate" Muslim condemning these murderous Muslims?
In 2009, 30% of the respondant said they had a positive view on group that attack Americans... What did you expect ? Did I need to tell you the US is in war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, threaten to attack Iran since 10 years or so, and is the only power that is systematically backing up Israel in the UN ? What does it have anything to do with them being muslim. Like sure, Islam is certainly violent, just like any other religion aside from budhism, and if you can't see that well man it's hella sad.
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
I don't get why this thread has turned to if Islam is fundamentally violent or not. That wikipedia link a few pages ago clearly shows that a significant number of people in these countries support terrorism- this isn't theoretical or what the Quran says, it's public opinion. More importantly for Americans (and the West in general), our action-oriented goals should be to 1) stop them from killing us and 2) not do so in a way that we can't still get their oil. And, obviously, to eventually become oil independent so we don't have to deal with this nonsense, but entirely absent sensible American energy policy is a tradition going back decades..
But still, in Libya- the embassy was nearly evacuated beforehand because they knew the demonstrations were coming. If they had to evacuate most of the people, the Libyan military, if truly our ally, should have been there to protect the embassy. Libya didn't stand up against extremists to protect us, and Obama is weak and probably won't stand up to them for their failure.
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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.
No it's absolutly not dumb. Your comparaison on the other side is pretty dumb. India was a colony, most people living in india were still - guess what - indians. In the case of Palestine, we are talking about people who lost their land.
I don't get why this thread has turned to if Islam is fundamentally violent or not. That wikipedia link a few pages ago clearly shows that a significant number of people in these countries support terrorism- this isn't theoretical or what the Quran says, it's public opinion. More importantly for Americans (and the West in general), our action-oriented goals should be to 1) stop them from killing us and 2) not do so in a way that we can't still get their oil. And, obviously, to eventually become oil independent so we don't have to deal with this nonsense, but entirely absent sensible American energy policy is a tradition going back decades..
On September 12 2012 23:34 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:29 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 23:25 CajunMan wrote: Sure its a small majority but polls among Muslims in the past show support for terrorist organizations in a majority of the population.
What? No. That's totally bull unless it's the Palestinians. Show me the polls.
Where are the "moderate" Muslim condemning these murderous Muslims?
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."
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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.
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
Based on your use of that chart to justify violence, I also assume that you'd find it acceptable for the UK to attack India, or for Mexico to attack Texas, or for Spain to invade South America, or for any other such possibility to occur? Using that chart to justify violence is dumb.
Nice analogy....not..comparing the end of an empire with stealing of Palestinian land is just absurd.
On September 12 2012 23:51 Souma wrote: paralleluniverse, I'd love to discuss this more with you but I need to sleep. If you can't see past your hate then, well, at least I tried.
Good night.
See past my hate?
Are you delusional? Turn on the news some time. How many more people need to be murdered in the name of Allah, and blown up in a suicide bombing before you realize what THEY ARE TELLING US -- they are killing us because 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:
On September 12 2012 23:00 Souma wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote: [quote]
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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.
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote: [quote]
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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 using a chart to justify violence is.
Native Americans have every right to fight back for their land - in fact, they tried to, but they lost, and they paid the price. Point is still moot. If Germany took over England, you honestly think the English wouldn't fight back?
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote: [quote]
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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 using a chart to justify violence is.
1. i don't think the natives have the strength or the will to do that. 2. what would they be fighting for? its impossible to send every non native to their homelands now. 3. the Palestinians are fighting for a concrete goal, and they think they have the chance of stopping the land grab, in your mind they should just sit idle and let the israelis steal more land, the UN is unable to do anything about it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] [3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
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.
They are putting up excuses for the guys who are partely responsible for the bad quality of life down there, but you have to realize that it is just ignorance built up in a bubble of wealth and peace.
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?
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 using a chart to justify violence is.
1. i don't think the natives have the strength or the will to do that. 2. what would they be fighting for? its impossible to send every non native to their homelands now. 3. the Palestinians are fighting for a concrete goal, and they think they have the chance of stopping the land grab, in your mind they should just sit idle and let the israelis steal more land, the UN is unable to do anything about it.
1. Irrelevant. 2. It only takes enough people delusional enough to believe that they can achieve that goal. 3. Defending your land from military forces is fine. Firing rockets at innocent civilians, which is most of what happens in Palestine, is not the same.
i would like them to change their policy and attack only military targets, but its hard to do that when you only have homemade bottle rockets that almost never reach their targets anyway.
The problem is less the religion than the difficulty to access proper education and school in those countries due to the poverty. Altho it is true that some branchs (taliban) don't tolerate education. This is really sad because Islam was way ahead of the europeans and christianity during the whole middle age when it comes to tolerancy and science.
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. Just look at all the moderate Muslims in Europe who rampaged and murdered, when a cartoonist dared to exercise his right to free speech and drew the Prophet. What other religion shows such extreme intolerance? Are you gonna blame that one on Western oppression too?
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote: [quote]
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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.
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.
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.
And to make things ironic, one of the biggest contributors to counter-terrorism in America have been the Muslim American population.
I'm baffled at the stupid comparaison some guys can come with. Educate yourself plz. Like the old same firing rocket at innocent civilians is ridiculous. They killed like 10 guy with those rockets in the last 5 years, which means basically less than kills with automatic weapon in the US in a month. On the other side, the number of Palestinians kids who die during the various Israelis' invasion is a legitimate reason to be pissed of.
Just let Israel and Palestine be, that's just not the point of the discussion at all, and defending one side or another without any idea of the real numbers behind the so called attacks is silly.
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.
On September 12 2012 22:26 GT3 wrote: As I said, the Quran preaches self defense, George W. Bush killed over 500 000 innocent Iraqi civilians and hurt many more. (www.iraqibodycount.org) this is a list of confirmed kills, uncorfimed kills estimates are 500 000-1 Million, and let's not talk about Abu Ghraib, the prison torture and humiliation of innocent Iraqi civilians.
It seems that you're either a dyslectic or have a minor reading problem, I said the Qur'An teaches self defense, the least we can do is kill Bush, or would you rather 500 000 - 1 Million Australian or American civilians dying, the Qur'an preaches eye for an eye, but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
Sorry, but I can only facepalm to this. What does self defense has to do with eye for an eye? I think your are confusing revenge and defense. But that is a big old classic: X did it, so we can do it too !!! And where are your ethics regarding the way you treat women? Nice preach!
On September 13 2012 00:21 Rodiel3 wrote: Those event remember me inquisition in Europe during middle age
Yes, the middle age. Hoping they get to renaissance any time soon...
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.
This thread went pear-shaped rather quickly. I just heard Obama's speech on the matter, and concur in wishing peace for the families of those involved. Great speechwriter btw (by that I mean Obama HAS a great speechwriter, I could see this getting confused).
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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 fact that there are Muslims that don't blow themselves up proves nothing. That's true of every other religion, despite the fact that many have suffered worse oppressions.
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.
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?
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
This is from one of the battles, Badr or Uhad. It's talking about a battlefield. You are allowed to kill people on a battlefield, right?
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Referring to apostates. Has nothing to do with us.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Once again, war.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
This is from the Battle of Badr. Once again, a battlefield.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
Battle against the Meccans. Another battlefield.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Battle against the Meccans as well.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Kinda self-explanatory.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Self-explanatory.
So, uh, what's wrong with killing people on a battlefield?
On September 13 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote: 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.
It really annoys me when liberals shelter this completely intolerant and violent religion, this one outlier, from criticism under the imagined pretense that all religions are equally good.
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.
During the British mandate, the currency used was the Palestine pound (IE, british currency), before that, the egyptian pound.
Read and enlighten yourself
I was about to type a response to this but I'm not going to further derail this thread by getting into a historical debate over something unrelated to the topic. And the Palestinians were part of the Ottoman empire in the same sense that the Scottish are a part of the UK today.
guys, i just came from the future. this is the last time something like this will happen in the name of wallah. from here on out the middle east will grow and prosper into a great land of triumphant ideas and everlasting peace, so dont worry at all.
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.
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.
You don't get it. Suicide bombing to them is what drone striking is to us. We're killing civilians while trying to get terrorists, are we not? And if we compound all the shit we've done to the Middle East since the Iranian revolution, you don't think Americans would be blowing up the Middle East brick by brick, civilian by civilian?
On September 13 2012 00:58 WniO wrote: guys, i just came from the future. this is the last time something like this will happen in the name of wallah. from here on out the middle east will grow and prosper into a great land of triumphant ideas and everlasting peace, so dont worry at all.
As a Catholic myself, I think we can best achieve this by converting them all to the church of the FSM.
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: [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?
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.
Bullshit.
Prove it.
Put it in context.
it doesn't really matter if it is that extereme, and I think it is. I read the quran, well translations but even then. quran is just a tool, It could have been anything else. nationalism, patriotism, commercial gain, anything.
It is not a healty aproach to dehuminize whole population throught their beliefs. If someome did something bad, blame them dont blame mare tools.
On September 13 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote: 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.
It really annoys me when liberals shelter this completely intolerant and violent religion, this one outlier, from criticism under the imagined pretense that all religions are equally good.
It's even stupider when people try to shield the U.S. and all the shit that they've done to incite this.
On September 13 2012 00:58 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote: 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.
It really annoys me when liberals shelter this completely intolerant and violent religion, this one outlier, from criticism under the imagined pretense that all religions are equally good.
It's even stupider when people try to shield the U.S. and all the shit that they've done to incite this.
Why is it stupider? What makes it more stupid? And not just as stupid, or even less stupid?
On September 13 2012 00:41 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:39 Souma wrote:
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: [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?
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.
Bullshit.
Prove it.
Put it in context.
it doesn't really matter if it is that extereme, and I think it is. I read the quran, well translations but even then. quran is just a tool, It could have been anything else. nationalism, patriotism, commercial gain, anything.
It is not a healty aproach to dehuminize whole population throught their beliefs. If someome did something bad, blame them dont blame mare tools.
The difference is these people believe that an almighty and all knowing being has written that book and told them to do certain things, and if they don't, they'll receive an eternity in hellfire. And what, since someone could kill someone in the future for other reasons means these cases are unimportant to investigate? (the cause of)
RIP Sean Smith If you guys would stop arguing about Israel and Islam and US foreign policy for a minute you'd realise that a man who impacted on the lives of tens of thousands of online gamers died. A whole community is in mourning. Save your stupid arguments for another day, many posters on tl knew the deceased personally, show some damn respect.
On September 13 2012 00:58 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 00:51 xDaunt wrote: 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.
It really annoys me when liberals shelter this completely intolerant and violent religion, this one outlier, from criticism under the imagined pretense that all religions are equally good.
It's even stupider when people try to shield the U.S. and all the shit that they've done to incite this.
Why is it stupider? What makes it more stupid? And not just as stupid, or even less stupid?
You have a point. Maybe it's just as stupid. It's hard to measure such a thing.
On September 13 2012 01:00 Souma wrote: You don't get it. Suicide bombing to them is what drone striking is to us. We're killing civilians while trying to get terrorists, are we not?
"We" are killing civilians looking for terrorists. Terrorists are killing "our" civilians looking for... what exactly?
On September 13 2012 01:11 KwarK wrote: RIP Sean Smith If you guys would stop arguing about Israel and Islam and US foreign policy for a minute you'd realise that a man who impacted on the lives of tens of thousands of online gamers died. A whole community is in mourning. Save your stupid arguments for another day, many posters on tl knew the deceased personally, show some damn respect.
Sorry. I'll stop here. I didn't know Sean Smith, but I heard about him from another friend.
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
This is from one of the battles, Badr or Uhad. It's talking about a battlefield. You are allowed to kill people on a battlefield, right?
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Referring to apostates. Has nothing to do with us.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
This is from the Battle of Badr. Once again, a battlefield.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Self-explanatory.
So, uh, what's wrong with killing people on a battlefield?
Guess what? Muslim extremists consider themselves at war with the West. So these are the type of passages they cite in their martyrdom videos. And thus, it's Islam that enables and justifies their barbaric acts.
On September 13 2012 01:00 Souma wrote: You don't get it. Suicide bombing to them is what drone striking is to us. We're killing civilians while trying to get terrorists, are we not?
"We" are killing civilians looking for terrorists. Terrorists are killing "our" civilians looking for... what exactly?
Revenge for the civilians that we've killed while looking for terrorists.
It's a vicious cycle that won't end until all foreign military intervention in the middle east ends.
On September 13 2012 01:00 Souma wrote: You don't get it. Suicide bombing to them is what drone striking is to us. We're killing civilians while trying to get terrorists, are we not?
"We" are killing civilians looking for terrorists. Terrorists are killing "our" civilians looking for... what exactly?
Revenge for the civilians that we've killed while looking for terrorists.
It's a vicious cycle that won't end until all foreign military intervention in the middle east ends.
Oh, thank you for pointing this out. I did not think about it, so smart Wouldn't revenge be a deadly sins? Or does that not exist in islam?
Salafism and takfirism is true Islam. It's not even up to debate. Don't bother with the Othman Qu'ran which is a mindless piece of incoherent and unchronological babble.
Read the biography of Muhammed, which is supposed to be a role model for all Muslims. Once you will truely know who Muslims see as a hero, you will understand that nothing good can directly emerge from this doctrine.
Damn shit got worse last time I read this on BBC...
IDK who to be mad at. The extremist or the director and producers of the terrible film considering not even South Park studios made fun of the prophet on an episode...
I see the Islam apologists are out in full force with the same tired excuses
"But, but, Christians and Jews did all these horrible things hundreds of years ago!"
I don't care about how f'ed up various religions were hundreds of years ago, I care about the present, let's talked about which religions are the most f'ed up right now.
"But, but, <some random example of an idiot from a relgion doing something horrible>!"
Yep, all religions have violent nutcases who do stupid stuff, no denying that. However look at the frequency and severity of these actions and you can see it's majorly disproportionate.
Nobody sane thinks all Muslims are terrorists or anything like that, but there's also no denying that when looked at as a whole there are way more violent nutjobs in Islam today than there are in other religions.
I mean let's just say it's 1% of Muslims who are violent, that's a very small majority and still a VERY big problem considering how many people that represents.
On September 13 2012 01:22 heroyi wrote: Damn shit got worse last time I read this on BBC...
IDK who to be mad at. The extremist or the director and producers of the terrible film considering not even South Park studios chose not to touch on this subject on an episode...
There is no reason to be mad at the producers of the film. I'm a proud defender of freedom of speech. Do I agree with the message the filmmakers were making? No. Do I think the film should be banned? Hell no.
We're not supposed to argue about religion, but I'll just point to my signature.
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote: [3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
This is from one of the battles, Badr or Uhad. It's talking about a battlefield. You are allowed to kill people on a battlefield, right?
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Referring to apostates. Has nothing to do with us.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Once again, war.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
This is from the Battle of Badr. Once again, a battlefield.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
Battle against the Meccans. Another battlefield.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Battle against the Meccans as well.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Kinda self-explanatory.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Self-explanatory.
So, uh, what's wrong with killing people on a battlefield?
Guess what? Muslim extremists consider themselves at war with the West. So these are the type of passages they cite in their martyrdom videos. And thus, it's Islam that enables and justifies their barbaric acts.
I could cite passages that make Christianity look just as bad but the modern church is smart enough to not read those passages. If you look hard you can just justify anything thru any religious text but that like going to far into the forest to see the trees and missing the overall point.
More importantly though I do hope this calms down and that cooler heads in the end prevail before things get even worse.
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.
You don't get it. Suicide bombing to them is what drone striking is to us. We're killing civilians while trying to get terrorists, are we not? And if we compound all the shit we've done to the Middle East since the Iranian revolution, you don't think Americans would be blowing up the Middle East brick by brick, civilian by civilian?
Comparing drone strikes against terrorists with blowing up subways busses and cafe's by terrorists. Laughable.
the US does not send out drones to hit a full market, or a funeral, or a bus....the terrorists do.
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.
I laughed a bit, the Palestinians went from 300.000 to over 3 million in 50 years, worst genocide ever. The Palestinians rejected their own state, opted for a global Jihad against Israel and got smacked, own fault.
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.
Bullshit.
Prove it.
Put it in context.
it doesn't really matter if it is that extereme, and I think it is. I read the quran, well translations but even then. quran is just a tool, It could have been anything else. nationalism, patriotism, commercial gain, anything.
It is not a healty aproach to dehuminize whole population throught their beliefs. If someome did something bad, blame them dont blame mare tools.
The difference is these people believe that an almighty and all knowing being has written that book and told them to do certain things, and if they don't, they'll receive an eternity in hellfire. And what, since someone could kill someone in the future for other reasons means these cases are unimportant to investigate? (the cause of)
of course not, thats what I meant by "tool". if you have time I would like you to read on sivas massacare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivas_massacre. It was a riot/lynching incited throught use of islam. Thing is not neccesrally islam is at fault here, inciters and expoilters are. It was never properly investigated, both inciters and security forces who didnt intervene is still at large. blaming islam at this event will not and didnt prevent any further incidents. Surely some forms of beliefs make it easier but..
You can really fight islam itself, neither on intellectual (cause it not logic its belief) nor on physical (well cause people do go bat shit insane when you try to do that and it usually back fires) level. Same happened with both chritianty and judaism, and many other earlier religions. The reason we dont have another tetonic crusade on our hands is not that humanity wage war on christianty and won. humanity did something right along the way and have people question their motives and actions even when they were dictated by their religions. Thats what we have to do with islam.
Well, looks like the attack on the US consulate was planned by unknown armed men, who took advantage of the protests to get in close. It would appear that the murder of the ambassador was not so much a targeted assassination but an opportunistic killing.
The story coming out now is that the Ambassador was evacuated to a safe house...and the Lybian's told the mob where to go.
He said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack.
On September 13 2012 01:23 semioldguy wrote: Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion
Except that the overwhelming majority of non-Western nations are deeply religious and understanding their religion is mandatory to understand their culture and politics.
You can't understand Israel politics without knowing anything about the Old testament and the Talmud, as you can't understand takfirism (terrorism) without knowing anything about the life of Muhammed.
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.
You don't get it. Suicide bombing to them is what drone striking is to us. We're killing civilians while trying to get terrorists, are we not? And if we compound all the shit we've done to the Middle East since the Iranian revolution, you don't think Americans would be blowing up the Middle East brick by brick, civilian by civilian?
Comparing drone strikes against terrorists with blowing up subways busses and cafe's by terrorists. Laughable.
the US does not send out drones to hit a full market, or a funeral, or a bus....the terrorists do.
On September 13 2012 01:22 heroyi wrote: Damn shit got worse last time I read this on BBC...
IDK who to be mad at. The extremist or the director and producers of the terrible film considering not even South Park studios chose not to touch on this subject on an episode...
There is no reason to be mad at the producers of the film. I'm a proud defender of freedom of speech. Do I agree with the message the filmmakers were making? No. Do I think the film should be banned? Hell no.
We're not supposed to argue about religion, but I'll just point to my signature.
that is my point...i understand they were going on the freedom of speech...I don't know. I am right now just furious with all of the pointless deaths...
All I can think about is that South Park episode and how they chose not to do it when considering they were threatened with their lives if they drew a portrait of Muhammad... now the producers (of the terrible movie)try to do something that the SP studios failed to do. What happened? People are dead and a riot is storming the building.
By the way where the hell is the defense from Libya...are they not responsible for the security and well being of our embassy?
The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Bacile said he is a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.
The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. The 14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.
Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.
"I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."
The hell, every embassy should have enough firepower to take down mobs?
Klein said he vowed to help Bacile make the movie but warned him that "you're going to be the next Theo van Gogh." Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
This guy's actions feels really irresponsible. He knew what would happen and then he blames embassy security for the ambassador's death. That's pretty lame.
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Peace and blessings upon you all brethren
..............seriously wtf did I read... I read "I am not trolling" like 5 times." Like...so much...clusterfuck
Bacile said he is a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.
The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. The 14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.
Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.
"I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."
The hell, every embassy should have enough firepower to take down mobs?
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
This guy's actions feels really irresponsible. He knew what would happen and then he blames embassy security for the ambassador's death. That's pretty lame.
Ok..that is what i thought. That is a pretty big douche move on the producers fault. And no. By the agreement the COUNTRY should have the firepower to take down a mob. Libya should be utilizing their military and security to defend any embassy on their soil. This is an absolute right between the nations.
On September 13 2012 01:35 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 13 2012 01:23 semioldguy wrote: Please don't use this thread as a platform to argue about religion
Then this thread has no point.
I am pretty sure we are allowed to discuss religion on this forum as long as we are civil about it...however we always have the few ignorant assholes that ruin in. I mean the whole event happened BECAUSE of religion
We should start releasing daily or weekly Muhammad videos until they can't possible protest them any more. I said yesterday more people would end up dead and the security forces would probably help it happen. Since when do they stop at 1? Turns out that is exactly what happened.
There is no saving radical Islam. Expect the same radicalism to be directed against America and Israel from Syria as soon as they are done with al-Assad, with our support.
Say what you will about the governments, they kept the radicalism from popping out too much.
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.
I laughed a bit, the Palestinians went from 300.000 to over 3 million in 50 years, worst genocide ever. The Palestinians rejected their own state, opted for a global Jihad against Israel and got smacked, own fault.
It's really sad isn't it? The media somehow twists suicide bombers into heroes and murderers into freedom fighters. If you look at the history, more Jews have been expelled from Arab Nations than Palestinians have been expelled from Israel. The IDF is no angel and they are accountable for many civilian deaths but that is a consequence of the Palestinian's methods of resistance. These "freedom fighters" hind behind women and children and store military supplies in schools and mosques. As long as these are the practices they employ I can't find sympathy for colateral damages.
It's SYSTEMATIC GENOCIDE. The Palestinians are losing and have lost way more civilians than the Israelis. They lost THEIR ENTIRE COUNTRY.
One group uses civilians and civilian shelters as shields while the other puts themselves in front of their civilians...
Sorry if this is off topic...
RIP to the deceased, it's really a terrible situation.
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Peace and blessings upon you all brethren
..............seriously wtf did I read... I read "I am not trolling" like 5 times." Like...so much...clusterfuck
Bacile said he is a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.
The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. The 14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.
Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.
"I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."
The hell, every embassy should have enough firepower to take down mobs?
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
This guy's actions feels really irresponsible. He knew what would happen and then he blames embassy security for the ambassador's death. That's pretty lame.
Ok..that is what i thought. That is a pretty big douche move on the producers fault. And no. By the agreement the COUNTRY should have the firepower to take down a mob. Libya should be utilizing their military and security to defend any embassy on their soil. This is an absolute right between the nations.
The country you say? That seems more reasonable. Thought he was saying embassies should field their own miniature police force.
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Peace and blessings upon you all brethren
You are trolling, waaay too obvious
> saying USA got brainwashed > believes in something proven to be unreal
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Peace and blessings upon you all brethren
..............seriously wtf did I read... I read "I am not trolling" like 5 times." Like...so much...clusterfuck
Bacile said he is a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.
The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. The 14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.
Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.
"I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."
The hell, every embassy should have enough firepower to take down mobs?
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
This guy's actions feels really irresponsible. He knew what would happen and then he blames embassy security for the ambassador's death. That's pretty lame.
Ok..that is what i thought. That is a pretty big douche move on the producers fault. And no. By the agreement the COUNTRY should have the firepower to take down a mob. Libya should be utilizing their military and security to defend any embassy on their soil. This is an absolute right between the nations.
The country you say? That seems more reasonable. Thought he was saying embassies should field their own miniature police force.
Still a douche imo though.
That guy is an ass. Those bloods are equally on his hand. I figured he would know what would happen cause otherwise that would be pretty ignorant.
And I don't know what the exact agreement act is called but it establishes that any country housing an embassy (from any nation) MUST defend it and secure the well-being of the people in it from any attacks. That is why I am confused as to what Libya's government is doing (are they doing anything or are they slow?)
On September 13 2012 01:01 deichkind wrote: We removed Gaddafi for this? Shouldve let him bomb the shit of out that town...
Please don't make uninformed posts like this. These were NEVER thought to be anti-Gaddafi people, and in fact it has come out that it was pro-Gaddafi forces taking advantage of the protests to cover for their actions.
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Peace and blessings upon you all brethren
..............seriously wtf did I read... I read "I am not trolling" like 5 times." Like...so much...clusterfuck
Bacile said he is a real estate developer and an Israeli Jew. But Israeli officials said they had not heard of him and there was no record of him being a citizen. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to share personal information with the media.
The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. The 14-minute trailer of the movie that reportedly set off the protests, posted on the website YouTube in an original English version and another dubbed into Egyptian Arabic, shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse, among other overtly insulting claims that have caused outrage.
Though Bacile was apologetic about the American who was killed as a result of the outrage over his film, he blamed lax embassy security and the perpetrators of the violence.
"I feel the security system (at the embassies) is no good," said Bacile. "America should do something to change it."
The hell, every embassy should have enough firepower to take down mobs?
"We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen," Klein said.
This guy's actions feels really irresponsible. He knew what would happen and then he blames embassy security for the ambassador's death. That's pretty lame.
Ok..that is what i thought. That is a pretty big douche move on the producers fault. And no. By the agreement the COUNTRY should have the firepower to take down a mob. Libya should be utilizing their military and security to defend any embassy on their soil. This is an absolute right between the nations.
The country you say? That seems more reasonable. Thought he was saying embassies should field their own miniature police force.
Still a douche imo though.
Embassies do have their own protection however it is not meant to deal with giant crowds nor heavily armed attackers. The main line of defense for an Embassy is always the local security provided by the Country in which the Embassy or Consulate resides. The Marines stationed at an Embassy are there for internal security inside the Embassy building, not for defending the walls from an angry mob or keeping a heavily armed mob. This is a failure by the Libyan Government in not providing enough security to keep the Embassy secure until those inside could at least be evacuated somewhere safe.
News is coming that this was actually a planned attack by Al Qaida. Not only that, but the Lybian embassy "guards" actually pointed out the building where the ambassador was in. At this point, I'd say pull out of the countries and let the fuckers muck around in their own filth. Cut all forms of aid and diplomatic ties. Treat them like North Korea. Let's see who's going to come begging once they're starving to death.
Blaming Islam for this is just ignorant, don't label an entire faith based on a few extremists. You can just as easily justify violence with Christianity or 'Spreading freedom/democracy'.
The Israeli director calling Islam a cancer is just laughable. If anything's cancerous to the Middle East it is the Jewish usurpation of part of Palentine after WW2 and their continued encroachment.
On September 13 2012 01:56 leperphilliac wrote: News is coming that this was actually a planned attack by Al Qaida. Not only that, but the Lybian embassy "guards" actually pointed out the building where the ambassador was in. At this point, I'd say pull out of the countries and let the fuckers muck around in their own filth. Cut all forms of aid and diplomatic ties. Treat them like North Korea. Let's see who's going to come begging once they're starving to death.
Libya is oil rich, if we leave them to their own devices there's a chance some of that wealth will stay in Libya.
On September 13 2012 01:56 leperphilliac wrote: Cut all forms of aid and diplomatic ties. Treat them like North Korea. Let's see who's going to come begging once they're starving to death.
You think Libya will starve without US aid o.O Even if they did all you do is make the poor suffer and aid recruitment. The 'soldiers' are always the last to starve. If anything I'd suggest increasing aid but I doubt the US can afford to be doing that.
On September 12 2012 20:04 Bahamut1337 wrote: The Islamic Jihadists also attacked a Egyptian embassy. Perhaps time for the US to start picking proper allies instead of Pro Jihad nations.
"Pro Jihad nations"... what? Don't let a group of crazies distort your view of an entire nation.
Since Egypt is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood who has a nice little slogan
''The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."[9][10] Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."[8]''
Not to mention the close links of many elements of the Muslim Brotherhood with Jihad groups. Yes a pro Jihad nation.
You are misinformed and look at things superficially. The military still holds the power in Egypt, to a significantly larger degree than corporations/financial institutions do in our country, to put it in perspective. If the Muslim Brotherhood held real power, there would be Sharia and state-mandated persecution of the Copts as we speak. THEN we'd be able to talk about a 'pro-jihad nation.'
On September 13 2012 01:21 SiroKO wrote: Salafism and takfirism is true Islam. It's not even up to debate. Don't bother with the Othman Qu'ran which is a mindless piece of incoherent and unchronological babble.
Read the biography of Muhammed, which is supposed to be a role model for all Muslims. Once you will truely know who Muslims see as a hero, you will understand that nothing good can directly emerge from this doctrine.
I've certainly read and heard a lot about Mohammad, even from the Muslim perspective, but he was pretty fucked up. I'll gladly say that about anyone I perceive as such, because I don't believe religious figures are automatically "holy" just because a religion says so...
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Go ahead and call me a troll, I can certainly say I ain't one, I stopped trolling 2-3 years ago because I matured, and why would a troll argue with viable arguments and actually say the truth, as far as I know trolls say stupid and retarded stuff in order to gain a reaction from people who believe firmly in what they do.
You only think Saddam Hussein was bad because the US government told you so. Let me ask you this, where is the weapons of mass destruction? Have you seen Iraq lately? It's thousand times worse than when it was in Saddams time, now you get kidnapped for no reason in the streets of Iraq, terrorists detonate explosive cars and kill each other and the people that are getting extorted.
Guys, I'm honestly not trolling, I'm presenting some facts that we in Iraq know because we have seen with our own eyes. The truth is here you either listen to it or you don't, you don't need to call me stupid just because this truth is outside your frame of thought or as I call it "The Ignorant Brain Box"
This isn't even about Islam anymore, this is now about the unjustly invasion of Iraq by the US. I'm not even mad at you guys, because the prophet Muhammed (PBUH) use to always smile and say peace upon both young and older people, and we muslims try to replicate his life, so peace upon you, I wish you no harm because you don't believe in something I don't, after all we are all humans and the same species, you don't see dogs declaring war on one another with rockets and weapons.
To end this provoking argument I leave you with a sura (story/verse) from the Qur'An.
109:1 Say, "O disbelievers,
109:2 I do not worship what you worship.
109:3 Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
109:4 Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
109:5 Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."
You belive in what you want to believe, and I'll do the same.
Peace and blessings upon you all brethren
Hussein is largely exaggerated for purposes of beating the war drum, but he was one fucked up dumbass, and his sons were 100x worse. It is very true though that Iraq is a complete shithole compared to how it used to be. Living in a county with tons of Iraqi Christian immigrants from different times, you tend to learn a lot about the past and present of the nation.
On September 12 2012 22:26 GT3 wrote: but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
too bad they are not proving it with their actions
On September 12 2012 23:56 paralleluniverse wrote: 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.
Somebody really needs to stop watching too much TV.
You can change "islam/muslims" for "communism/russians" and it would sound exactly as what was said some 30 years ago. I find that hilarius.
On September 12 2012 22:26 GT3 wrote: but in Islam we are not allowed to kill innocents, we have morals and ethics, something you and the american government is severely lacking in.
too bad they are not proving it with their actions
War has changed.
(In case you don't get it I'm quoting Solid Snake, both parties are killing thousands of innocents, its a war, only a dumb ass would believe both are not doing it on purpuse, civilians either get in the way or its to teach them a lesson).
On September 13 2012 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote: Report: US to fly unmanned spy drones over eastern Libya to look for jihad camps tied to attack on embassy
On September 12 2012 23:56 paralleluniverse wrote: 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.
Somebody really needs to stop watching too much TV.
You can change "islam/muslims" for "communism/russians" and it would sound exactly as what was said some 30 years ago. I find that hilarius.
Muhammed orderd to kill people who mocked his religion. This is a fact. Thus, people seeing him as a role model kill people mocking his religion. Nothing wrong with that, according to the Othman Qu'ran, and the Hadiths.
On September 13 2012 02:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2 countries that Obama has caused chaos in.
2 countries where our embassies are attacked.
which 2 countries did this not happen in?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Stellar logic, talk about the incident at hand and not your bullshit political bias please.
i am talking about the incident on hand. and what bullshit political bias? you're the one who inserted some kind of "bias", I just stated the facts and let you draw the conclusions. apparently, you pretty much think what i think, only it seems to make you very angry that its true.
fact is, Obama's ridiculous lack of anything resembling a rational foreign policy is what caused this incident, and i think that needs to be highlighted.
On September 13 2012 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote: Report: US to fly unmanned spy drones over eastern Libya to look for jihad camps tied to attack on embassy
I don't see a link.
And what the fuck is a "Jihad camp"?
Sounds like something from C&C Generals.
I have no clue how drones are going to: a) be able to tell what these camps look like (and why would their be a random camp in eastern libya based off one rocket attack?) b) tie any such 'camp' to the embassy attack c) be particularly good at spying when their launch has made international news.
Seems more like a knee-jerk publicity thing, "Hey look, we're doing something with our fancy military tech!"
On September 13 2012 02:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2 countries that Obama has caused chaos in.
2 countries where our embassies are attacked.
which 2 countries did this not happen in?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Stellar logic, talk about the incident at hand and not your bullshit political bias please.
i am talking about the incident on hand. and what bullshit political bias? you're the one who inserted some kind of "bias", I just stated the facts and let you draw the conclusions. apparently, you pretty much think what i think, only it seems to make you very angry that its true.
fact is, Obama's ridiculous lack of anything resembling a rational foreign policy is what caused this incident, and i think that needs to be highlighted.
TL likes facts and evidence, you know, the standard requisite of intelligent discussion. Instead, you are drawing wide-arching assumptions based on a clearly poor understanding of the tumultuous situation and using the death of US citizens abroad to get a political message out. Substantiate your claim or say something....oh I don't know.......reasonable? For example, do you have any idea who the Salafists are?
On September 13 2012 01:35 GT3 wrote: The illuminati has you brainwashed so good that even when the truth is presented to you, there is a veil between you and it.
Can you be more specific on that illuminati thing?
I've been reading on this all morning on different news websites and still cannot find anywhere the repercussions for this... Will there be any sort of repercussions aside from a boost in sercurity at our embassies?
On September 13 2012 02:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2 countries that Obama has caused chaos in.
2 countries where our embassies are attacked.
which 2 countries did this not happen in?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Stellar logic, talk about the incident at hand and not your bullshit political bias please.
i am talking about the incident on hand. and what bullshit political bias? you're the one who inserted some kind of "bias", I just stated the facts and let you draw the conclusions. apparently, you pretty much think what i think, only it seems to make you very angry that its true.
fact is, Obama's ridiculous lack of anything resembling a rational foreign policy is what caused this incident, and i think that needs to be highlighted.
Because Bush going into Afghanistan and Iraq was fantastic foreign policy... A few embassies being attacked is nothing compared to the shitstorm those two wars set off.
History is repeating , centuries ago we had the "Dark Age" perpetuated by christian fundamentalists (and we all know how many casualties were caused by it), now, (speaking mostly about the last 2 decades) we have the islamic fundamentalists, same crap, hate to the border of insanity, people getting killed left and right, tho, with a modern connotation. It makes you think that the whole reason why mankind is so fragmented in its thoughts and will is just because of "radical" and "perverted" interpretation of a religion.
Anyway, RIP Christopher Stevens and the 3 other diplomats that were killed.
On September 13 2012 02:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2 countries that Obama has caused chaos in.
2 countries where our embassies are attacked.
which 2 countries did this not happen in?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Stellar logic, talk about the incident at hand and not your bullshit political bias please.
i am talking about the incident on hand. and what bullshit political bias? you're the one who inserted some kind of "bias", I just stated the facts and let you draw the conclusions. apparently, you pretty much think what i think, only it seems to make you very angry that its true.
fact is, Obama's ridiculous lack of anything resembling a rational foreign policy is what caused this incident, and i think that needs to be highlighted.
TL likes facts and evidence, you know, the standard requisite of intelligent discussion. Instead, you are drawing wide-arching assumptions based on a clearly poor understanding of the tumultuous situation and using the death of US citizens abroad to get a political message out. Substantiate your claim or say something....oh I don't know.......reasonable?
so do you think it's pure coincidence that this happened in the two countries where Obama has involved the US in shady revolutions?
does TL like sticking their heads in the sand? what about denying the obvious?
On September 13 2012 01:56 leperphilliac wrote: News is coming that this was actually a planned attack by Al Qaida. Not only that, but the Lybian embassy "guards" actually pointed out the building where the ambassador was in. At this point, I'd say pull out of the countries and let the fuckers muck around in their own filth. Cut all forms of aid and diplomatic ties. Treat them like North Korea. Let's see who's going to come begging once they're starving to death.
To add to this here it reported as a revenge attack for the current number 2 in Al Qaida getting killed off and was done by 20 armed men (some with RPGs) and used the protest as a cover for the attack. Although alot of responses to the film are absurd (such as Egypt wanting to sue the makers) the death of the 4 Americans was a terror attack with no real link to the film.
On September 13 2012 02:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2 countries that Obama has caused chaos in.
2 countries where our embassies are attacked.
which 2 countries did this not happen in?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Stellar logic, talk about the incident at hand and not your bullshit political bias please.
i am talking about the incident on hand. and what bullshit political bias? you're the one who inserted some kind of "bias", I just stated the facts and let you draw the conclusions. apparently, you pretty much think what i think, only it seems to make you very angry that its true.
fact is, Obama's ridiculous lack of anything resembling a rational foreign policy is what caused this incident, and i think that needs to be highlighted.
TL likes facts and evidence, you know, the standard requisite of intelligent discussion. Instead, you are drawing wide-arching assumptions based on a clearly poor understanding of the tumultuous situation and using the death of US citizens abroad to get a political message out. Substantiate your claim or say something....oh I don't know.......reasonable?
so do you think it's pure coincidence that this happened in the two countries where Obama has involved the US in shady revolutions?
does TL like sticking their heads in the sand? what about denying the obvious?
If it is so obvious demonstrate the logical process that leads to it.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
But.. but.. but..... the Muslims all said that Islam is a religion of peace!
On September 13 2012 02:06 ImFromPortugal wrote: Report: US to fly unmanned spy drones over eastern Libya to look for jihad camps tied to attack on embassy
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
But.. but.. but..... the Muslims all said that Islam is a religion of peace!
This attack is not directly linked to the film in anyway at all. Yes the knee jerk reaction to any criticism is absurd and very problematic this is not the case here.
On September 13 2012 02:22 HomeWorld wrote: History is repeating , centuries ago we had the "Dark Age" perpetuated by christian fundamentalists (and we all know how many casualties were caused by it), now, (speaking mostly about the last 2 decades) we have the islamic fundamentalists, same crap, hate to the border of insanity, people getting killed left and right, tho, with a modern connotation. It makes you think that the whole reason why mankind is so fragmented in its thoughts and will is just because of "radical" and "perverted" interpretation of a religion.
Anyway, RIP Christopher Stevens and the 3 other diplomats that were killed.
It would be good if you cultivate yourself instead of relaying ignorant leftist propaganda. If you don't know anything about the History of Catholicism in Europe, and the Sunni Islamic doctrine, it's better you be quiet about them, instead of hiding your ignorance with mindless overgeneralizations.
On September 13 2012 02:22 HomeWorld wrote: History is repeating , centuries ago we had the "Dark Age" perpetuated by christian fundamentalists (and we all know how many casualties were caused by it), now, (speaking mostly about the last 2 decades) we have the islamic fundamentalists, same crap, hate to the border of insanity, people getting killed left and right, tho, with a modern connotation. It makes you think that the whole reason why mankind is so fragmented in its thoughts and will is just because of "radical" and "perverted" interpretation of a religion.
Anyway, RIP Christopher Stevens and the 3 other diplomats that were killed.
Anyone with a competent knowledge of history knows that the so-called label of "Dark Age" is a misnomer that no legitimate historian accepts.
Get over your narrow politicizing of all these events, and grieve for the people who died. People... are... fucking... DEAD. To concentrate on blame when the bodies are still not cold is the act of someone who is a downright inhuman sociopath. Think for a moment if anyone involved would like for nothing to be remembered but anger, and not reflection on loss of life. Can you not see that what you write over here should be dedicated to the actual victims and their families? If I was a mod here, I'd delete half the thread after banning the people who write that shit.
This is a tragedy, and my heart goes to those who lost family, friends and loved ones.
These guys don't need excuses, they'll slaughter people at their whim. Because of a movie? Move like because you felt particularly bloodthirsty lately and wanted an easy excuse...
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
But.. but.. but..... the Muslims all said that Islam is a religion of peace!
It is, without a doubt, till the moment some persons uses it to push their own "agenda". Make no mistake Islam is a good religion, as every other religions on Earth, but sadly, as much as it is "good" there will always be some "bad" persons to take advantage of it and "push" their own will.
On September 13 2012 02:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: 2 countries that Obama has caused chaos in.
2 countries where our embassies are attacked.
which 2 countries did this not happen in?
Iraq, Afghanistan.
Stellar logic, talk about the incident at hand and not your bullshit political bias please.
i am talking about the incident on hand. and what bullshit political bias? you're the one who inserted some kind of "bias", I just stated the facts and let you draw the conclusions. apparently, you pretty much think what i think, only it seems to make you very angry that its true.
fact is, Obama's ridiculous lack of anything resembling a rational foreign policy is what caused this incident, and i think that needs to be highlighted.
TL likes facts and evidence, you know, the standard requisite of intelligent discussion. Instead, you are drawing wide-arching assumptions based on a clearly poor understanding of the tumultuous situation and using the death of US citizens abroad to get a political message out. Substantiate your claim or say something....oh I don't know.......reasonable?
so do you think it's pure coincidence that this happened in the two countries where Obama has involved the US in shady revolutions?
does TL like sticking their heads in the sand? what about denying the obvious?
I don't have to think that these events were pure coincidence to not be willing to place blame on the Presidents foreign policy, at least not with tangible evidence. In fact, if you knew anything about the Ansar-al-Shariah, you'd know that they look for any excuse needed to attack those who oppose their radical brand of Islam and are an unfortunate consequence of a revolution, hardly a consequence of anything being "shady" (which, in my experience, is childspeak for I don't understand). In fact, Salafists and fundamentalists had their agenda fare very poorly in recent days, both in popular Libyan appeal and in governmental influence. Furthermore, reports suggest that the TERRORISTS themselves were attacking based on the insult to their religion offered forth by a neo-con fool of a director who probably thinks as you do. So, tell me again, based on good evidence from the region, what is so obvious?
On September 13 2012 02:22 HomeWorld wrote: History is repeating , centuries ago we had the "Dark Age" perpetuated by christian fundamentalists (and we all know how many casualties were caused by it), now, (speaking mostly about the last 2 decades) we have the islamic fundamentalists, same crap, hate to the border of insanity, people getting killed left and right, tho, with a modern connotation. It makes you think that the whole reason why mankind is so fragmented in its thoughts and will is just because of "radical" and "perverted" interpretation of a religion.
Anyway, RIP Christopher Stevens and the 3 other diplomats that were killed.
Anyone with a competent knowledge of history knows that the so-called label of "Dark Age" is a misnomer that no legitimate historian accepts.
It's 2012 and yet we still kill eachother over who's imaginary friend is better.... Only when religion falls will our earth have a chance at being peaceful
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
But.. but.. but..... the Muslims all said that Islam is a religion of peace!
It is, without a doubt, till the moment some persons uses it to push their own "agenda". Make no mistake Islam is a good religion, as every other religions on Earth, but sadly, as much as it is "good" there will always be some "bad" persons to take advantage of it and "push" their own will.
Some persons in this context meaning millions, including hundreds if not thousands of groups endorsing it.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
But.. but.. but..... the Muslims all said that Islam is a religion of peace!
It is, without a doubt, till the moment some persons uses it to push their own "agenda". Make no mistake Islam is a good religion, as every other religions on Earth, but sadly, as much as it is "good" there will always be some "bad" persons to take advantage of it and "push" their own will.
Where does your premisse "every religion on Earth is a religion of peace"' comes from ? How comes the role model of this religion beheaded himself several captives and toke as sex slaves the wife of his dead ennemies. These are facts of the Othman qu'ran and the hadiths.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Christianity passed the '' kill kill kill all infidels stage'' ages ago. What Islam needs is an enlightment but its foundation is fundamentally different.
Jesus died on the cross. Muhammed robbed carvavans, waged war, told people to stop believeing in their own god and chanted for all jews to die. Quite a difference if you ask me. Add the fact that the stories of Christianity have changed ( or better said their meaning) whereas the islamic stories never changed ( you must interpretet is directly)
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Sadly this isnt so, alot of Muslims who were born and grew up in modern countries are still very backwards on religious issues. Those who in general become less religious are more integrated but a lot of those who stay religious are very hostile to any outsider and different belief.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Many people forget just how much younger and less progressed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
On September 13 2012 02:35 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Many people forget just how much younger and less progressed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
I wonder if this is possible for Islam. It has always been a violent religion.
Christianity spread by peaceful conversions for a long time before it reached a time where it would use violence.Islam started as a violent religion, its nature is violent. And bar indonesia not a single Islamic nation became one by peaceful means.
On September 13 2012 02:41 farvacola wrote:essed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
So basically its fine right? Let them kill people because they are growing up. When a kid kills someone, don't you tell him it isn't too great to do so?
On September 13 2012 02:35 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Many people forget just how much younger and less progressed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
I wonder if this is possible for Islam. It has always been a violent religion.
Christianity spread by peaceful conversions for a long time before it reached a time where it would use violent.Islam started as a violent religion, its nature is violent. And Bar indonesia not a single Islamic nation became one by peaceful means.
I beg to differ, many breakthroughs in mathematics were done by Islamic scholars. Also, if I recall correctly the history that I've learned in school/highschool, there were no major events (in a bad way) pre ww2 that can be attributed to Islamism.
On September 13 2012 02:35 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Many people forget just how much younger and less progressed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
I wonder if this is possible for Islam. It has always been a violent religion.
Christianity spread by peaceful conversions for a long time before it reached a time where it would use violent.Islam started as a violent religion, its nature is violent. And Bar indonesia not a single Islamic nation became one by peaceful means.
You bring up an interesting point, but I'm not sure it makes sense to look at Islam in explicitly national terms. You are correct in pointing out the violent genesis of Islamic power in many Middle Eastern states, but the massive diaspora of Muslims across the world points to a phenomena in which the peaceful, more harmonious brands of Islam are the kinds that travel and shun national boundaries. While I realize it is controversial to suggest such a thing in some circles, the vast, vast majority of Muslims living in non-Islamic countries are peaceful, dare I say patriotic individuals who seek only to practice their faith and be given equal consideration.
On September 13 2012 02:35 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Many people forget just how much younger and less progressed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
I wonder if this is possible for Islam. It has always been a violent religion.
Christianity spread by peaceful conversions for a long time before it reached a time where it would use violent.Islam started as a violent religion, its nature is violent. And Bar indonesia not a single Islamic nation became one by peaceful means.
Christianity was spread by force by the Roman and Byzantine emperors, with heavy persecution of non-Christians (especially pagans and Jews). Through further coercion by other kings who converted to Christianity for various reasons, it spread into northern and eastern Europe, and through colonization of the New World, to the Americas as well. Just disgusting like Islam, but obviously Christianity has lost its extremist hold in the last few centuries. Fortunately in the current era, Christianity is losing its relevance in many Western countries, so you hardly see any idiotic extremists like you see in many Islamic countries.
If Christianity was spread by peaceful conversions, rather than imperialism and force for 90+% of the cases, I doubt it would have even 100 million followers. In fact, it doesn't surprise me at all that the Christian world is becoming more and more atheistic.
That said, even the western narrative for Islam is that is largely spread peacefully, although I doubt such a thing. For example, advanced and powerful nations do not convert to the religion of semi-nomadic, poor people on their own accords, especially not the Persians who took great means to preserve their language and culture despite the Arabian conquerors.
Perhaps, from a strategic standpoint, the Persians shouldn't have put their capital right next to modern-day Baghdad, right north of the marauding armies from Arabia. :/
On September 13 2012 02:35 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
On September 12 2012 20:00 Bahamut1337 wrote:
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
It's not about a specific religion, it's about the state of the countries this religion mainly exists in and how the countries operate. Christianity used to be just as violent as the Islam is now, and Muslims that have been raised and grown up in modern countries are just as reasonable as anyone else. It's pretty stupid and closed minded to say that their specific religion is the problem. If they were all Christians they would still be just as extremist.
Many people forget just how much younger and less progressed the Islamic faith is, at least in historical terms. Christianity has already gone through a stage in which schismatic groups jumped at the drop of a hat to commit acts of violence in the name of Christ, and as Islam permeates and instantiates itself as a world faith further, these sorts of "growing pains" (I hate to say something so pedestrian here, but it really fits) are going to happen, US involvement or not. There was even a time in which the Armies of King David had offshoot gangs of pissed off radical Jews would comb the Philistine countryside, looking for men to kill and religious points to make. Every major Abrahamic religion has gone through a period of random dogmatic violence, we need only look at history to realize that Islam is no different.
I wonder if this is possible for Islam. It has always been a violent religion.
Christianity spread by peaceful conversions for a long time before it reached a time where it would use violent.Islam started as a violent religion, its nature is violent. And Bar indonesia not a single Islamic nation became one by peaceful means.
I beg to differ, many breakthroughs in mathematics were done by Islamic scholars. Also, if I recall correctly the history that I've learned in school/highschool, there were no major events (in a bad way) pre ww2 that can be attributed to Islamism.
What does Mathematics have to do with takfirism. Besides, Muslims at that time islamized the whole Persia, North Africa, and Spain. If you know anything about the history of these rich and prosperous regions, t's quite logical to expect a few good Scientifics emerging from them.
So...after my infantile rage, I thought about Sean Smith... I have known people in communities that I have talked to who later died from either car accidents or a very severe illness. I cannot understand the sadness that the EVE Community must be going through. This was not one of several of thousands of people who died in a car accident every day, this guy was tarted and was one of 3 people killed and getting murdered is much more unlikely to happen to someone, even if they are a high ranking official. The statistics of that happening seem very unlikely at a first glance and he was somehow murdered. Talk about horrible luck...RIP Sean Smith and I hope the EVE Online community will not think of retaliation or some sort of revenge.
Every single poster on this page (p16) was banned (excluding me I hope ), maybe close this thread as it is too difficult a topic to discuss, especially if discussing religion is considered too sensitive.
On topic: I feel sad that people were murdered for what another person said. That's just not right, no matter your convictions.
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:
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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?
Western countries did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq to murder its civilians in the name of democracy.
I feel like this is an immensely stupid thing to say. You don't take a dump in your toilet to splash your ass with water. It happens. In war you are 100% certain it will happen.
Palestine vs Israel, they didn't start the conflict to kill civilians but to get their lands back. Civilian deaths happen, and the conflict has gotten ugly... What if someone killed your mother, would you sit by and say "oh well, atleast I know I shouldn't apply violence. High road ftw". Or if someone suddenly said the land you were living on now belongs to an entirely new country. Would you smile and accept this? Do you think every single one in your entire state would simply accept this? Do you think they would want to kill civilians, or to take their land back? Do you think no civilian would get hurt in the process? Do you think such a conflict couldn't possibly get out of hand? I mean, come on. It's not realistic. I really don't see how these acts of war are mainly religious. A land being occupied or stripped from a people by force always results in conflict. Even after capitulation you should expect some sort of underground resistance.
And anyone not understanding why Palestine applies violence has never read any history where a country was occupied (e.g second world war). It happens every single f***** time. Resistance to, atleast, some degree. You can't judge a people for doing exactly what you would have done yourself.
to talk about history a little bit, i cant help but feel that the entire middle east is trying to reclaim and retake its lost glory. prior to the crusades, the middle east was one of the most populous, well educated, and generally stable regions is the world. After the crusades were over a slow decline started due to all the different factions make grabs for power. then the plaguu hit most of europe and fostered conditions for the renaissance to occur. at which point europe leap-frogged technologically and socially. skip a few hundred years to right about the end of ww1, suddenly oil and gas are in high demand, only getting more valuable, and sheikhs who had been told of the glory days of byzantium and persia and how it was taken from them by the "christian dogs" find themselves in a position of power.
the next few decades should be no surprise. they ( i imagine) had socioeconomic power concentrated into the hands of a few people who wanted nothing more than to bring the "glory days" back and, as is very relevant in that part of the world, wanted respect and retribution.
our increased use of proxies in the region combined with our ever increased need of resources put them where they have to power and will to use any means available to strike at the western nations who abused them and stole their glory and honor (in their minds)
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?
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.
Mz. Israel keeps building new walls and what not to grab more and more land. "Stop being pissed about something" to you means "prevent their lands from being lost completely" to them. Based on your cenario you would not fight. Based on their, you might have. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind your country being completely extinguished?
I'm not suggesting war is good, but playing devils advocate to bring forth the point that sometimes, to some people, it will be a neccesary evil. If the injustice feels great enough, you will not care about how you hurt your enemy. You will just want to cut them. Blaming the Palestinians is, in a way, very one sided and simple minded. We don't have to condone their acts, but saying they are the evil side of this conflict is an oversimplification.
On September 12 2012 22:50 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:31 Mephy wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:27 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 12 2012 22:15 Mephy wrote: Some posts in here that call Islam a "violent religion" are really fucking depressing. And I'm not even Muslim, I'm Christian. I sincerely hope people are able to make the distinction between a violent religion and fanatical extremists.
Islam at its roots is no more violent than any other religion in the world. I ask those who claim that Islam preaches violence - where exactly in the Quran does it call out for Muslims to actively murder and kill other non-Muslims? I can assure you that there are much, much more passages committed to spreading the message of peace and forgiveness. And please, please don't take messages out of context like the idiot on the previous page.
Some of the Muslims may have acted out of anger that someone insulted their religion, and you can argue that their killing was motivated by their interpretation of Islam. But in that case, why aren't the rest of the 1.6 billion Muslims picking up their rocket launchers and going to war? You're looking at a very small group of fanatics (relatively) with their own warped interpretation of Islam, not the vast majority of the Muslim population, and then suddenly you decide its alright to label the entire Islamic religion as violent?
Want to stop the senseless killings and promote peace? Well you guys sure aren't helping with your uneducated comments. How about you start by understanding other religions and stop perpetuating these stereotypes?
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.111] Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.
Now that you've found those, why don't you compile a list of passages that talk about peace and equality? Then we can find some sort of ratio and determine if Islam is violent.
You act as if there is some sort of mental tug of war in the minds of these murderers and terrorists. But if you've actually watched any of their propaganda you'd know there is no such conflict, they are absolutely clear-headed that Islam and the Quran justifies suicide bombings and murders. The ratio of good-to-bad is not part of their mental calculus. Why do these people keep talking about Allah, Islam, and slaughtering infidels? Could it be because religion has everything to do with their reasoning?
And it is these types of hateful and intolerant teachings that allows them to justify to themselves why it is acceptable to kill someone else for blasphemy. If you deny that Islam is the primary source of their murderous outrage, then what is it?
You say that these murderers have a warped view of Islam. Then why aren't there similarly warped views of Christianity that leads to suicide bombings? Could it be that Islam is more forcefully intolerant and hateful than Christianity?
And in the face of these atrocities, what do you do? Nothing. No condemnation. You write as if we should just open our arms to accept these primitives who believe in a religion that calls for the murder of nonbelievers and blasphemers. Let's welcome these people who are from the most theocratic and intolerant places on planet Earth, pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they believe, despite that the fact that this religion has bred suicide bombers, religious fanatics, and murderous mobs like nowhere else in the modern world. What could possibly go wrong? Remember Madrid? London?
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 can say that I'm not muslim, but I'm pretty sure I would fight back, if I could. I'm not buddhist either, but history shows that you do not need religion to justify defending your loved ones and your country.
Attacks against freedom of speech (and other freedoms) I do not tolerate what-so-ever. But I do not agree with your logic. It isn't complete.
It's time to realize that electing a president friendly to the region does fuck all. It was pure ignorance to view the Arab Spring as a positive in any way. The way the Middle East is being handled is so dysfunctional and amateur. I can only hope the U.S. doesn't start being "friendly" to Russia in the same way. Some countries hate the U.S. for legitimate reasons, stop pretending like they want to be friends.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
WE (Christians) laugh at ourselves, Muslims laugh at us - we don't care Muslims don't parody/laugh at themselves, we laugh at them - they care and angry
And if Jew laughs from Muslim - Muslim very sad.
I guess people just are not meant to understand others.
On September 13 2012 03:45 maliceee wrote: It's time to realize that electing a president friendly to the region does fuck all. It was pure ignorance to view the Arab Spring as a positive in any way. The way the Middle East is being handled is so dysfunctional and amateur. I can only hope the U.S. doesn't start being "friendly" to Russia in the same way. Some countries hate the U.S. for legitimate reasons, stop pretending like they want to be friends.
How are we supposed to make them our friends if we don't extend an olive branch? Even after this I'm not going to advocate violence towards Libya or the Middle East. I just want to get out of there. Also, the current president has talked friendship, but our troops are still present in the middle east. Have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
I'm so tired of these people. I really am. It bothers me on either side. We should NOT be pro-Israel, we should be pro-secularism and pro-peace. If you want to make Israeli, anti-Muslim propaganda pieces in hopes that it provokes violence, than please get the hell away from me and my countrymen. Go to "the Promised Land", "defend" yourself from the infidels, kill each other, just get it over with and leave OTHERS OUT OF IT. Don't cry to me about how tough Israel has it in response to my indifference. Israel ultimately chose that land to live on for religious purposes, and my supposed secular country has paid for it on their behalf with way more lives and blood than such "sacred" garbage is worth.
On September 13 2012 03:45 maliceee wrote: It's time to realize that electing a president friendly to the region does fuck all. It was pure ignorance to view the Arab Spring as a positive in any way. The way the Middle East is being handled is so dysfunctional and amateur. I can only hope the U.S. doesn't start being "friendly" to Russia in the same way. Some countries hate the U.S. for legitimate reasons, stop pretending like they want to be friends.
How are we supposed to make them our friends if we don't extend an olive branch? Even after this I'm not going to advocate violence towards Libya or the Middle East. I just want to get out of there. Also, the current president has talked friendship, but our troops are still present in the middle east. Have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
There are troops in the middle-east (Libya isn't in the middle-east, it is North-Africa), we withdraw them.
Alright, all the troops are gone from the middle-east, what now? Well, there are still those pesky Jews, and what about those Shia muslims?
But imagine, for a moment, that they don't destroy Israel or Iran.
All the troops are back home. A cartoon is published. We are made to pay.
What did we expect? We made a cartoon, we stepped over the line they made, we went too far, now we must be punished.
A dozen will die, perhaps in a terrorist attack, perhaps just a crazy gunman, regardless, some of us are going to be executed and murdered because we dared to insult their religion.
Give up, if that is what is in your heart, surrender with zeal, but don't surrender for me.
I'm not going to hand over my freedom of speech to the first theocrat or totalitarian that knocks on my door. Come and pry is from my cold dead fucking hands.
This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
So if I go out and kill someone, because I find your post to be attacking freedom of speech, something that I consider sacred, would you be thrown in jail for hate speech?
I mean, your post made me go out and kill someone, shouldn't you be censored and tried for treason?
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
On September 13 2012 03:45 maliceee wrote: It's time to realize that electing a president friendly to the region does fuck all. It was pure ignorance to view the Arab Spring as a positive in any way. The way the Middle East is being handled is so dysfunctional and amateur. I can only hope the U.S. doesn't start being "friendly" to Russia in the same way. Some countries hate the U.S. for legitimate reasons, stop pretending like they want to be friends.
Huh? Less Americans died in the Middle East under Obama's watch than under Bush. McCain, the alternative to Obama, wanted to (a) send ground troops into Libya and (b) start bombing Syria. And the Republican establishment went out of its way to attack Obama for not getting involved into Libya quicker and with more troops, before shutting up because they realized that Obama's response was both measured and popular.
So I guess I am confused as to what would have been a 'better' way to handle the situation in the Middle East since America (a) needs oil to be relatively cheap (b) cannot go against Israel because a large segment of the America voting population either (i) believes that Jesus Christ will come back to Earth once all the Jews move back to Israel and therefore Israel must be supported at all costs or (ii) are Jewish-Americans who have strong pro-Israeli leanings no matter what and live in key electoral states like Florida
People need to realize that there is no magic button that a US President can press that would stop a large group of poorly educated and angry young people from hating America. And while it would make you feel temporarily better, and fuel your revenge fantasies, to imagine some sort of air or naval bombardment it would change nothing. Israel has been bombarding Gaza for decades now and fundamentally nothing has changed. For the last 50 years these people have been under the propaganda of various dictators, who find it convenient to blame America for the crap situation in those countries, or various Islamic leaders, who armed with petro dollars from Saudi Arabia do the same AND blame America for dictators too. Giving them freedom will not magically turn them into Average Joe American, who likes the rule of law and freedom.
Democracy in the Middle East inevitably will lead to a period of governments that are more outright hostile to America than the dictators they replaced. The point of supporting democracy in the middle east is that when the locals see that angry clerics making them cover up their women and pray to their God doesnt magically fix the unemployment in inflation they will elect people who offer more than empty angry rhetoric. Islamism as a democratic ideal clearly has failed in Iran and the current regime is forced to be as vicious and repressive as the Shah that it overthrew. And that makes sense because normal people are results oriented and when every dictate of a religion is followed and the all powerful and all knowing god still sits back while inflation gallops to 30% people start asking whether it wouldnt be better to engage in some pragmatic policy making instead of just blind faith. Of course, as Republicans keep getting re-elected in America this might be a forlorn hope on my side.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes, it does.
Not if it incites violence. This guy admitted that he expected violent retribution to his films. It'd be one thing if he put himself out there as the target, but he made others the target.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
I'm glad there's some sense in this thread. Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"?
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
WE (Christians) laugh at ourselves, Muslims laugh at us - we don't care Muslims don't parody/laugh at themselves, we laugh at them - they care and angry
And if Jew laughs from Muslim - Muslim very sad.
I guess people just are not meant to understand others.
Here are Muslims laughing at themselves in English (there are Arab language comedians too, but I presume you dont understand them)
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes, it does.
Not if it incites violence. This guy admitted that he expected violent retribution to his films. It'd be one thing if he put himself out there as the target, but he made others the target.
What if I say "I demand all abortion ends or I'll kill people" and someone puts out a pro-abortion ad, which causes me to go kill someone, should they be put into jail for inciting violence?
You just don't like what the guy says and want him to shut up.
You should be mad at the people committing the violence.
No movie, no matter how offensive, vile, or hate filled, should ever be used any sort of excuse to murder people.
Talking about the guy who made the movie in ANY way is ridiculous.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
I obviously do not condone the violent reaction to the man's films, but the fact that the man made such political trash knowing it would get people killed --- yeah, that disgusts me.
On September 13 2012 03:45 maliceee wrote: It's time to realize that electing a president friendly to the region does fuck all. It was pure ignorance to view the Arab Spring as a positive in any way. The way the Middle East is being handled is so dysfunctional and amateur. I can only hope the U.S. doesn't start being "friendly" to Russia in the same way. Some countries hate the U.S. for legitimate reasons, stop pretending like they want to be friends.
Well, the Arab Spring was an inevitable process, kleptocratic dictatorships are all doomed to fail at some point and when the information spreads as fast as it does today, domino effect is very likely. And sadly, with the regime that systematically oppressed everyone who opposed it, only the hardest thugs and religious fanatics [no religion bashing intended, simply a factual statement] are left to see it fall.
On September 13 2012 03:40 iTzSnypah wrote: Oh for the love of bacon we better not invade Libya because of this as this seems like a perfect selling point.
I highly doubt that will happen.
Disregarding the political ramifications for the Dems to invade a country when they've been using the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq as points of attack against Repubs, it just doesn't make any sense to respond militarily over the death of an ambassador.
For all intents and purposes, Ambassadors are not civilians. They are agents of the United States government. Facing danger in violent regions is part of what they do. If this was a soldier in Libya on a security detail, there would be almost no backlash whatsoever because people understand that violence and danger is part of a soldier's job. Ambassadors are not much different in this regard.
Bad video in Israel insulting your religion? KILL EVERYONE!!!!!! Sometimes, I just think that the Middle East is too fucked up, that they, both as a civilization and a people, are too fucked up to let them bother us anymore. If they were just like Africa, where the only casualties were each other, then it wouldn't be so bad. Fanatical shitwads would kill fanatical shitwads and a few generations down the line humanity would be a cleaner, better species.
But this is just inexcusable.
At the very least, they could have targeted Israelis, if not the film maker himself (that doesn't sound too hard, does it? Targeting the people who actually did something?). Instead, like the idiotic pieces of shit that they can be, they take to the streets with guns and bombs and do what they do best: show why sometimes, tolerance is not an option. Show why sometimes, mercy is not an option. Show why sometimes, innocent until proven guilty is not an option. Show why sometimes, we just need to clean up our world a little bit. If only they had never come into possession of that oil. Think of it for a second. 9/11 would most likely not have happened. We would not be there waging wars. They would not have the resources and weaponry that they do now, not even close. Countless lives would have been saved. They would have been isolated, as Africa is. All they have done with their new technology is kill each other, and us, more.
They would not matter if they did not have oil.
If only they didn't matter now. If only that was an option. Just having us leave them and their violence and insanity behind.
To those in the middle east who did not take to the streets, who abhor what your fellow countrymen have done: I salute you. You are a shining example of the human race, of why we can't march in their guns blazing, nukes roaring across the sky as the land is purged of life, both good and evil. You are among the greatest of our kind, and so, every time I shake with rage, every time I want to just end millions of lives and have both them and the troubles they cause removed from this earth, I am reminded: no benefit will ever outweigh the cost of what we would lose, and the price we would pay for our sins.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
On September 13 2012 05:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Bad video in Israel insulting your religion? KILL EVERYONE!!!!!! Sometimes, I just think that the Middle East is too fucked up, that they, both as a civilization and a people, are too fucked up to let them bother us anymore. If they were just like Africa, where the only casualties were each other, then it wouldn't be so bad. Fanatical shitwads would kill fanatical shitwads and a few generations down the line humanity would be a cleaner, better species.
But this is just inexcusable.
At the very least, they could have targeted Israelis, if not the film maker himself (that doesn't sound too hard, does it? Targeting the people who actually did something?). Instead, like the idiotic pieces of shit that they can be, they take to the streets with guns and bombs and do what they do best: show why sometimes, tolerance is not an option. Show why sometimes, mercy is not an option. Show why sometimes, innocent until proven guilty is not an option. Show why sometimes, we just need to clean up our world a little bit. If only they had never come into possession of that oil. Think of it for a second. 9/11 would most likely not have happened. We would not be there waging wars. They would not have the resources and weaponry that they do now, not even close. Countless lives would have been saved. They would have been isolated, as Africa is. All they have done with their new technology is kill each other, and us, more.
They would not matter if they did not have oil.
If only they didn't matter now. If only that was an option. Just having us leave them and their violence and insanity behind.
To those in the middle east who did not take to the streets, who abhor what your fellow countrymen have done: I salute you. You are a shining example of the human race, of why we can't march in their guns blazing, nukes roaring across the sky as the land is purged of life, both good and evil. You are among the greatest of our kind, and so, every time I shake with rage, every time I want to just end millions of lives and have both them and the troubles they cause removed from this earth, I am reminded: no benefit will ever outweigh the cost of what we would lose, and the price we would pay for our sins.
Were you this angry when a crazy Chinese guy murdered those American tourists in China too? Why is that when an insane Middle Eastern person kills Americans, some people are ready to nuke 300 million people to punish a much smaller segment of the population?
So much hate and intolerance from smart people here in TL, it's disturbing and depressing.
I though that by now some of the smart people in the internet would have realized that differences in ideology don't have too much to do with individual actions of crazy people, but to some of you it's so much easier to insult and hate on a huge group of people for the doings of a few. Because in the muslim religion and culture the name and image of their prophet is sacred, apparently that gives you the the right to mock it, to insult him and all the people who believe in that, because apparently that is what freedom of expression should be about, or because apparently that's how you treat yourselves when deep down is not true and is hate the reason why Muhammed and his people are being insulted.
And the sad reason is: You believe you are so much better than them, how pathetic that is. To feel superior to another human being used to be because they were darker, now it's because they believe in a different religion and have a different culture. I don't even think it's your own fault for having those sad beliefs, let's rewind 50-40 years back, nobody in america had those set of beliefs, but you, that claim to be such a developed individual just absorb everything propaganda throws at you, it's at this point inevitable for you to make the propaganda your own ideal, ideals of hate, prejudice and ignorance, that's the supposed ideology superior than muslims?
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
On September 13 2012 05:17 Nevermind86 wrote: So much hate and intolerance from smart people here in TL, it's disturbing and depressing.
I though that by now some of the smart people in the internet would have realized that differences in ideology don't have too much to do with individual actions of crazy people, but to some of you it's so much easier to insult and hate on a huge group of people for the doings of a few. Because in the muslim religion and culture the name and image of their prophet is sacred, apparently that gives you the the right to mock it, to insult him and all the people who believe in that, because apparently that is what freedom of expression should be about, or because apparently that's how you treat yourselves when deep down is not true and is hate the reason why Muhammed and his people are being insulted.
And the sad reason is: You believe you are so much better than them, how pathetic that is. To feel superior to another human being used to be because they were darker, now it's because they believe in a different religion and have a different culture. I don't even think it's your own fault for having those sad beliefs, let's rewind 50-40 years back, nobody in america had those set of beliefs, but you, that claim to be such a developed individual just absorb everything propaganda throws at you, it's at this point inevitable for you to make the propaganda your own ideal, ideals of hate, prejudice and ignorance, that's the supposed ideology superior than muslims?
Sorry, but I feel completely justified in saying that I am better than those who kill innocent people.
Hell, I'll say it again. I'm better than those who kill innocent people. I don't know why anyone would consider that a controversial statement.
On September 13 2012 05:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Bad video in Israel insulting your religion? KILL EVERYONE!!!!!! Sometimes, I just think that the Middle East is too fucked up, that they, both as a civilization and a people, are too fucked up to let them bother us anymore. If they were just like Africa, where the only casualties were each other, then it wouldn't be so bad. Fanatical shitwads would kill fanatical shitwads and a few generations down the line humanity would be a cleaner, better species.
But this is just inexcusable.
At the very least, they could have targeted Israelis, if not the film maker himself (that doesn't sound too hard, does it? Targeting the people who actually did something?). Instead, like the idiotic pieces of shit that they can be, they take to the streets with guns and bombs and do what they do best: show why sometimes, tolerance is not an option. Show why sometimes, mercy is not an option. Show why sometimes, innocent until proven guilty is not an option. Show why sometimes, we just need to clean up our world a little bit. If only they had never come into possession of that oil. Think of it for a second. 9/11 would most likely not have happened. We would not be there waging wars. They would not have the resources and weaponry that they do now, not even close. Countless lives would have been saved. They would have been isolated, as Africa is. All they have done with their new technology is kill each other, and us, more.
They would not matter if they did not have oil.
If only they didn't matter now. If only that was an option. Just having us leave them and their violence and insanity behind.
To those in the middle east who did not take to the streets, who abhor what your fellow countrymen have done: I salute you. You are a shining example of the human race, of why we can't march in their guns blazing, nukes roaring across the sky as the land is purged of life, both good and evil. You are among the greatest of our kind, and so, every time I shake with rage, every time I want to just end millions of lives and have both them and the troubles they cause removed from this earth, I am reminded: no benefit will ever outweigh the cost of what we would lose, and the price we would pay for our sins.
Were you this angry when a crazy Chinese guy murdered those American tourists in China too? Why is that when an insane Middle Eastern person kills Americans, some people are ready to nuke 300 million people to punish a much smaller segment of the population?
Because you're comparing one person killing Americans to a mob killing Americans.
Maybe I'm overboard on calling treason -- and it certainly isn't going to happen.
It just bothers me that this guy admits to making a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim film that he strongly suspects will result in violence, and Americans, who're supposed to be of a secular government, are the ones to die for it. Something is very, very, very wrong with this picture. Crap like this actually makes me want Ron Paul for President. When are we going to stop caring about this dastardly corner of the world? How much do we have to pay Israel before we can say, "It's on you now, take care of your own selves, we're done and we're going to tell everyone that."
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
On September 13 2012 05:26 Leporello wrote: Maybe I'm overboard on calling treason -- and it certainly isn't going to happen.
It just bothers me that this guy admits to making a pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim film that he strongly suspects will result in violence, and Americans, who're supposed to be of a secular government, are the ones to die for it. Something is very, very, very wrong with this picture. Crap like this actually makes me want Ron Paul for President. When are we going to stop caring about this dastardly corner of the world? How much do we have to pay Israel before we can say, "It's on you now, take care of your own selves, we're done and we're going to tell everyone that."
Just wondering, who are you accusing of treason? The pastor that made the film? I don't think he did anything wrong at all. I haven't seen the film, I probably wouldn't agree with it, but I strongly support the rights of anyone to make any film with any message. That's what freedom of speech is really about.
I don't think this has anything to do with Israel. Even if we had no military presence in the Middle East we'd still have embassies. Obviously, given what has happened, we should NOT have an embassy in Libya again for at least 10 years. We should really just cut off all relations with that country.
On September 13 2012 05:12 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Bad video in Israel insulting your religion? KILL EVERYONE!!!!!! Sometimes, I just think that the Middle East is too fucked up, that they, both as a civilization and a people, are too fucked up to let them bother us anymore. If they were just like Africa, where the only casualties were each other, then it wouldn't be so bad. Fanatical shitwads would kill fanatical shitwads and a few generations down the line humanity would be a cleaner, better species.
But this is just inexcusable.
At the very least, they could have targeted Israelis, if not the film maker himself (that doesn't sound too hard, does it? Targeting the people who actually did something?). Instead, like the idiotic pieces of shit that they can be, they take to the streets with guns and bombs and do what they do best: show why sometimes, tolerance is not an option. Show why sometimes, mercy is not an option. Show why sometimes, innocent until proven guilty is not an option. Show why sometimes, we just need to clean up our world a little bit. If only they had never come into possession of that oil. Think of it for a second. 9/11 would most likely not have happened. We would not be there waging wars. They would not have the resources and weaponry that they do now, not even close. Countless lives would have been saved. They would have been isolated, as Africa is. All they have done with their new technology is kill each other, and us, more.
They would not matter if they did not have oil.
If only they didn't matter now. If only that was an option. Just having us leave them and their violence and insanity behind.
To those in the middle east who did not take to the streets, who abhor what your fellow countrymen have done: I salute you. You are a shining example of the human race, of why we can't march in their guns blazing, nukes roaring across the sky as the land is purged of life, both good and evil. You are among the greatest of our kind, and so, every time I shake with rage, every time I want to just end millions of lives and have both them and the troubles they cause removed from this earth, I am reminded: no benefit will ever outweigh the cost of what we would lose, and the price we would pay for our sins.
Were you this angry when a crazy Chinese guy murdered those American tourists in China too? Why is that when an insane Middle Eastern person kills Americans, some people are ready to nuke 300 million people to punish a much smaller segment of the population?
Because you're comparing one person killing Americans to a mob killing Americans.
It was not a mob, it was a terrorist group who inflitrated the protest. When the protesters arrived at the scene, Libyan security moved the staff to a "safe" location, which was then targeted with RPG-7s.
But lets rephrase my question, if 4-5 crazy Chinese guys killed some Americas would you also call for the nuclear bombardment of all of China?
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
I actually think the modern KKK could do that because it's not affiliated with the former criminal organization.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
I actually think the modern KKK could do that because it's not affiliated with the former criminal organization.
Same name, same ideas, but they don't actually do anything illegal.
I don't think so at all.
I think the moment they showed up in force the police would break it up, but now we're arguing what ifs. I've already made my point. Organizations can forfeit some or all of their right to speak freely.
Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote: Hell, I'll say it again. I'm better than those who kill innocent people. I don't know why anyone would consider that a controversial statement.
The western powers have killed a lot of innocent people too, to deny this is fanatism or outright blindness. The point is, of what I was trying to say: it is perfectly right for you to call murderers of civilians a wicked group of people, I agree they should pay for what they did.
Now when you believe that you are superior to a whole group of people for some petty difference like religion and culture, and that's what a lot of people feel when they insult muslims, then you are just childish and being childish is bad as much as it is for society to spread those values around. It's what happened because 40-50 years ago nobody had such a hate for muslims, now with propaganda they are the enemy, exactly what communists used to be.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
we (and the rest of NATO) never should have bombed them in the first place. We did, and look how the country has ended up. This pastor has been doing this type of stuff for years, but this is the first time an ambassador was killed over it. Back when Gaddafi was in charge, the US embassy in Libya was fine. And I think that's what Obama's priority should always be, protecting citizens of HIS country.
On September 13 2012 05:23 Voltaire wrote: Hell, I'll say it again. I'm better than those who kill innocent people. I don't know why anyone would consider that a controversial statement.
The western powers have killed a lot of innocent people too, to deny this is fanatism or outright blindness. The point is, of what I was trying to say: it is perfectly right for you to call murderers of civilians a wicked group of people, I agree they should pay for what they did.
Now when you believe that you are superior to a whole group of people for some petty difference like religion and culture, and that's what a lot of people feel when they insult muslims, then you are just childish and being childish is bad as much as it is for society to spread those values around. It's what happened because 40-50 years ago nobody had such a hate for muslims, now with propaganda they are the enemy, exactly what communists used to be.
I agree that western powers have killed lots of innocents, and I am extremely angry because of that. I support an isolationist foreign policy. I had nothing to do with any of those innocent people who were killed, so my statement still stands.
And I haven't seen any posts in this thread where someone has claimed to be superior to a group of people solely based off petty differences like religion or culture. Maybe a few troll posts, but I just ignore those.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
I feel that would mostly play into the hands of the people that did this.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
it's a real shame. my condolences to the innocents who get caught in the crossfire between our idiots and their idiots.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
don't be stupid, this is not Libya attacking America. this is a bunch of nutjobs who killed both Libyans and Americans.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
So...the already weak democratic government of Libya should be undermined further to the benefit of the terrorists that seek to overthrow it because the weak Libyan government's security forces are yet not competent enough to secure consulates? Makes sense.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
Yea...you're wrong. Is it likely that we will ever see a large KKK march again? No. Is it legal? Yes.
I wonder if any of the Libyan mob were killed in the attack? I hope that at least those killed at the embassy were at least able to try to defend themselves.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
So...the already weak democratic government of Libya should be undermined further to the benefit of the terrorists that seek to overthrow it because the weak Libyan government's security forces are yet not competent enough to secure consulates? Makes sense.
I'm talking about a moral justification, not a rational one ; ).
Of course the US won't attack an allied goverment. But from a moral standpoint I certainly believe it to be more justified than bombing Irak, Iran or the original campaing against Libya. This was a direct attack on US citizens, it's goverment and worst of all a diplomatic body.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
So...the already weak democratic government of Libya should be undermined further to the benefit of the terrorists that seek to overthrow it because the weak Libyan government's security forces are yet not competent enough to secure consulates? Makes sense.
I'm talking about a moral justification, not a rational one ; ).
Of course the US won't attack an allied goverment. But from a moral standpoint I certainly believe it to be more justified than bombing Irak, Iran or the original campaing against Libya. This was a direct attack on US citizens, it's goverment and worst of all a diplomatic body.
On September 13 2012 05:51 starfries wrote: it's a real shame. my condolences to the innocents who get caught in the crossfire between our idiots and their idiots.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
don't be stupid, this is not Libya attacking America. this is a bunch of nutjobs who killed both Libyans and Americans.
On September 13 2012 05:51 starfries wrote: it's a real shame. my condolences to the innocents who get caught in the crossfire between our idiots and their idiots.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
don't be stupid, this is not Libya attacking America. this is a bunch of nutjobs who killed both Libyans and Americans.
Our idiots = ???
the guys that make videos trying to provoke an extremist response?
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors.
Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors.
Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
And how do you know it was an angry mob? Why cant you just say "Its unclear who actually killed the ambassador, an angry mob representing average Libyans or an angry mob that was infiltrated by an al-quida team that knew the standard Libyan response to threats to the staff and consequently responded that way themselves and so instead of blaming Obama I will withhold judgment until a later date"
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors.
Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
I dont understand however, why does he look bad if it was terrorists? I mean the president isn't responsible for everything...
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors.
Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
I dont understand however, why does he look bad if it was terrorists? I mean the president isn't responsible for everything...
Because at this time of the year everything gets reduced down to how it will reflect in the election. Sad but true.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
Defending the embassies is one thing.
Bombing the country that happens to house the rioters, extremists, militants etc. that attacked your embassy is something totally different.
I'm not saying the United States should do NOTHING about the attack, but potentially killing a bunch of innocent people with bombs is not going to solve anything and only accomplishes making the United States look a bunch of trigger happy tyrants.
The mature diplomatic approach is to work WITH the new Libyan government to find the people responsible for the attack and punish them.
Kind of wonder about that video, was it a innocent comedy or something created to be incendiary on purpose to destroy our relations in the Middle East? I even doubt they were true Jews maybe they were a bunch of spies sent to impersonate Jews.
Just amazed anyone would be that brazen about their mocking of Islam, you have to know anything you say its like kicking a beehive.
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
Because angry mobs totally come fully armed with mortars and rocket propelled grenades? You're ignoring clear facts if you think that this wasn't perpetrated by an organization. Ambassador Stevens was also widely admired by local Libyans for his support of the Libyan rebels and their cause.
Even more evidence to confirm that the locals clearly had no role to play in this: http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI [series of images from pro-US rallies in Libya]
Yes, angry mobs DO have mortars and RPGs. This country just had a civil war. One side was exclusively angry mobs, the other was the military. The angry mobs won. There are tons of weapons floating around these countries. You don't have to be a military organization to get these kinds of weapons. You can buy them from street vendors.
Obviously the Obama administration wants to say it was plotted in advance because it makes him look better. He looks a lot worse if an ambassador was killed by an angry mob as opposed to an organized terrorist group. But I don't believe it, not until some evidence comes out.
Look at what you're saying. First, you (conveniently) ignored the fact that local Libyans widely admired the ambassador. Second, you seem to be operating from a heavily skewed image of "these countries." You ignore the fact that separate protests in "these countries" happening in Egypt were markedly different. You're presuming that these heavy explosives can be bought from street vendors (citation missing). Third, you also don't seem to be correctly gauging some of these weapons. If it were RPGs alone, maybe. But there were mortars. Mortars are longer-range weapons that have to be directed, and hence, coordinated. You don't just spontaneously decide to stop where you're standing on the street corner and shoot - you have to set up, adjust angles, and fire. That heavily implies organization.
On September 13 2012 00:55 ticklishmusic wrote: You kick a dog and it bites. Whose fault is it?
What an idiot.
You mean because someone totally unrelated made a retarded movie, and it offended someone, who then decided to kill some people totally unrelated to the movie makers, it is the fault of the movie makers?
People carry their own fault, these killers should be punished, and what the did is out of proportion to any insult that happened.
Also people died for no good reason, and here we are on the internet having our usual discussions about right or wrong.
On September 13 2012 05:34 CrimsonLotus wrote: Man, if I was Obama I would sure feel a strong need to bomb the shit out of Libya (again). First time in a long time the US would actually be justified in doing something like that.
How does the death of one ambassador and a few security personnel justify bombing the crap out of Libya and potentially killing scores of innocents?
The United States got involved in Libya when NATO backed the Rebels there. We aren't a neutral party.
I'm pretty sure is the obligation of the host nation to defend the embassies. Their failiure to do this implies some level of complicity or at least criminal incompetence, so in my view this would give the US some moral ground for military intervention. But I do agree that there wasn't such justification for the original campaing, so it's all really, really ironic.
Defending the embassies is one thing.
Bombing the country that happens to house the rioters, extremists, militants etc. that attacked your embassy is something totally different.
I'm not saying the United States should do NOTHING about the attack, but potentially killing a bunch of innocent people with bombs is not going to solve anything and only accomplishes making the United States look a bunch of trigger happy tyrants.
The mature diplomatic approach is to work WITH the new Libyan government to find the people responsible for the attack and punish them.
exactly.
have people seen this album, at the top of Reddit?
this is a pro-US demonstration in Benghazi. it's Libyans, condemning the terrorists and reminding people that these people do not represent Islam. don't be so eager to judge an entire country based on the actions of the few.
On September 13 2012 06:28 Voltaire wrote: It was an angry mob of civilians that attacked the embassy. Not an organized group.
This was a coordinated and well-planned attack, not a bunch of random nutjob angry mobs.
It's been confirmed that armed gunmen had planned to attack US targets. They did not plan the demonstration nor the appearance of the ambassador, but used both events to their advantage.
Wow....this is so saddening, not to mention how, suddenly, our sort of sphere has suddenly been hit by what appears to be an event very very unlikely to affect us... RIP all of those involved
"a crowd gathered at dusk, about 7 p.m. (1700 GMT), chanting slogans against the film and angry at Washington's failure to act against its promoters. At some point, shooting began, with some in the crowd thinking they were under fire from the consulate. Around 10 p.m., rioters surged into the compound, bullets and grenades flew, and fires started.
Among the assailants, Libyans identified units of a heavily armed local Islamist group, Ansar al-Sharia, which sympathizes with al Qaeda and derides Libya's U.S.-backed bid for democracy.
Eventually, some three dozen Americans drove off to a safe house, knowing one diplomat was dead and Ambassador Christopher Stevens missing. When an eight-man rescue team flew in from Tripoli, they and their Libyan escorts were pinned down with the survivors by another attack in which two more Americans died...
...Tellingly, he [Abdel-Salam al-Bargathi, who runs the security operations] and another senior officer, Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the pro-government local defense force, the Libya's Shield Brigade, stressed that the Libyan guards on the consulate - estimated by Bargathi at up to 40 or more - may have felt little will to defend the compound from what they, and many other Libyans, judged to be justified religious indignation....
...I first of all place the blame on the United States itself for allowing such a movie to be produced. This was the product of the anger of Muslims," Buhmeid said, noting also that the guards had only light weapons in the face of rockets.
...I saw utter chaos. The power went out and it was completely dark," he said. "There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths and injuries and attacks are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet."
Bargathi, of the police command, said the killings had taken the protest too far, but said: "What we saw was a very natural reaction to the insult to the Prophet. We condemn the deaths but the insult to the Prophet made people very angry."
Ali Fetori, 59, an accountant who lives near the embassy, said: "The security people ... just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.""
...Libyan officials said the surviving Americans withdrew to a safe house. It would be normal security procedure in countries like Libya for international personnel to have a secure, secret location prepared for just such an eventuality.
Captain Fathi al-Obeidi, commander of a special operations force for the February 17 Brigade, told Reuters that he took a call about 1:30 a.m. from Tripoli telling him that a helicopter was on its way from the capital's Mitiga airport with a rescue squad of eight U.S. troops - he described them as marines...
...Here, two more things went wrong. First, Obeidi found four times as many Americans at the single-storey, fortified house as he had been told expect - 37, not just 10. So he did not have enough transport. Then, the villa came under massive attack.
This time, there was little doubt in the minds of Libyans who experienced it that this was a well-organized assault by men who had mastered the complexities of military mortar fire.
"This attack was planned," Obeid said. "The accuracy with which the mortars hit us was too good for any ordinary revolutionaries."
...Though Libya's deputy interior minister described the locating of the safe house as a "critical security breach"...
"It began to rain down on us," Obeidi said just as the rescue force was preparing to leave. "About six mortars fell directly on the path to the villa," he said. One American fell wounded by him. A mortar struck the building itself, throwing from the roof another American posted there onto the men below."
TL;DR The attack is said to have been deliberate and planned; four Americans, including the Libyan Ambassador were killed. Three dozen Americans escaped to a safe house where they, again, were attacked with heavy fire, including mortars. Head Libyan security officials place "blame on the United States itself for allowing such a movie to be produced. This was the product of the anger of Muslims.." Noting that the 40+ Libyan guards did not help protect the compound because they too were angered. Obama has tightened security at all embassies and two Naval destroyers have been sent to the Libyan coast in case the US wishes to pursue further action against Libyan targets.
I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
While we should be tolerant of a religion's beliefs, I think that ANY notion of attacking another, fatally, over religion should be stamped out. While the example I gave above isn't exactly optimal, it would probably get the job done. I'm welcome to other suggestions, though. The people that would suffer the worst out of this would sadly be the tolerant Muslims themselves, who don't even believe in killing another over their god.
I'm really sad because I believe for humankind, as a whole, to progress (into space and such), such religious notions are absolutely detrimental. And for the loss of human lives, whether they be Libyans or Americans.
Well let's see here... We know what happens when you piss off extremists... No one wants America in the middle east, soldiers or diplomats. You're in the second most dangerous region on the planet, in a country fresh of an unresolved civil war. We of course let another Israeli fuck things up and then we act outraged at the results. Play with fire, world police, it's incredible these things don't happen more often.
And then back home, the typical facebookers, "Ohhh Islam so much more violent than Christianity ever was." Yes, let's throw masses of people under the bus based on the acts of a few who hide behind their faith, usually their political interests or special assignments, but we blame them because they're Muslims, and muslims = bad in 'Merika.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
Intentionally mocking someone's deepest beliefs is okay if you disagree with then?
Only if your deepest beliefs allow you to. That seems to be the mentality of this triangular extremist monotheistic blood train.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
Maybe you should understand culture differences ard realize not everyone is like you?
Muslims would find it less offensive for you to slap them across the face than insult their prophet. Attacking their skin color is several levels lower than attacking their prophet to them. Notice the to them part of the sentence.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
First, who says anyone has to participate in these demonstrations? Second, isn't it better to allow an open expression of thought and address it with rational discussion rather than suppress and silence it and have it boil over into violence? The true test of a free society is when our principles are challenged, not cherry picked in politically correct easier times.
On September 13 2012 13:21 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Well let's see here... We know what happens when you piss off extremists... No one wants America in the middle east, soldiers or diplomats. You're in the second most dangerous region on the planet, in a country fresh of an unresolved civil war. We of course let another Israeli fuck things up and then we act outraged at the results. Play with fire, world police, it's incredible these things don't happen more often.
And then back home, the typical facebookers, "Ohhh Islam so much more violent than Christianity ever was." Yes, let's throw masses of people under the bus based on the acts of a few who hide behind their faith, usually their political interests or special assignments, but we blame them because they're Muslims, and muslims = bad in 'Merika.
Noone should have to live in fear of extremists. And taking an international relations class would be incredibly helpful when expressing opinions on the American "world police".
Cutting aid to Egypt and Lybia would be a more effective move than parking some destroyers and putting a company of Marines on standby.
Also, the story has changed a few times since I heard about what happened this morning and there are quite a few people talking about the attack (not riot) being planned?
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
Yea...you're wrong. Is it likely that we will ever see a large KKK march again? No. Is it legal? Yes.
There's enshrined legality in doing these kind of things, but equally law enforcement and the likes stop have de facto powers in stopping such rallies if they feel it affects public order. Just look at how some of the Occupy protests were treated when they were going on.
Sad event, sad we're having yet another discussion after another one of these shitstorms again. Fucking ridiculous people.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
First, who says anyone has to participate in these demonstrations? Second, isn't it better to allow an open expression of thought and address it with rational discussion rather than suppress and silence it and have it boil over into violence? The true test of a free society is when our principles are challenged, not cherry picked in politically correct easier times.
re your first point: I think you misunderstood why I'm talking about this analogy, so I'll just ask you to reread the page. if that doesn't clear things up, feel free to bring it up again.
second: yes, it is. I don't think that was the cause of the Libyan attack, though. (afaik their religious views weren't being suppressed here)
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
Yea...you're wrong. Is it likely that we will ever see a large KKK march again? No. Is it legal? Yes.
There's enshrined legality in doing these kind of things, but equally law enforcement and the likes stop have de facto powers in stopping such rallies if they feel it affects public order. Just look at how some of the Occupy protests were treated when they were going on.
Sad event, sad we're having yet another discussion after another one of these shitstorms again. Fucking ridiculous people.
The reason the occupy protests were shut down were because they were either:
1) Occupying someone else's land for an indefinite period of time. The parks belonged to the city, so the city had a right to not allow people to camp there indefinitely. Plenty of warnings were given before people were arrested/tents taken down.
2) They blocked traffic. Something like 500 people were arrested for blocking the Brooklyn bridge, but that's only because they were blocking a vital transportation route that NYC really depends on.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
Maybe you should understand culture differences ard realize not everyone is like you?
Muslims would find it less offensive for you to slap them across the face than insult their prophet. Attacking their skin color is several levels lower than attacking their prophet to them. Notice the to them part of the sentence.
I think that's what has to change. The level at which they find it offensive enough to actually kill people for it.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
Yea...you're wrong. Is it likely that we will ever see a large KKK march again? No. Is it legal? Yes.
There's enshrined legality in doing these kind of things, but equally law enforcement and the likes stop have de facto powers in stopping such rallies if they feel it affects public order. Just look at how some of the Occupy protests were treated when they were going on.
Sad event, sad we're having yet another discussion after another one of these shitstorms again. Fucking ridiculous people.
The reason the occupy protests were shut down were because they were either:
1) Occupying someone else's land for an indefinite period of time. The parks belonged to the city, so the city had a right to not allow people to camp there indefinitely. Plenty of warnings were given before people were arrested/tents taken down.
2) They blocked traffic. Something like 500 people were arrested for blocking the Brooklyn bridge, but that's only because they were blocking a vital transportation route that NYC really depends on.
Those were the two main ones, covered the most and yes those examples are correct. I've heard plenty of stories of both non-invasive protests, and individual protestors being broken up/arrested and what have you. Alas none of my sources over here given that I'm at my girlfriend's place
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
First, who says anyone has to participate in these demonstrations? Second, isn't it better to allow an open expression of thought and address it with rational discussion rather than suppress and silence it and have it boil over into violence? The true test of a free society is when our principles are challenged, not cherry picked in politically correct easier times.
re your first point: I think you misunderstood why I'm talking about this analogy, so I'll just ask you to reread the page. if that doesn't clear things up, feel free to bring it up again.
second: yes, it is. I don't think that was the cause of the Libyan attack, though. (afaik their religious views weren't being suppressed here)
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
Not the same. Note how people can actually mock Jews with cartoons and movies and they don't protest worldwide and murder ambassadors for it.
On September 13 2012 05:03 Leporello wrote: This movie-producer has admitted that he knew the ramifications for this.
I would not protest if this guy were tried for treason in U.S. court. It is an inflammatory movie, made by someone who calls himself Israeli, and he created it with the admitted purpose of inciting violence. Free speech does not cover hate speech.
Yes it does.
The KKK is allowed to march in the streets and shout white power, the Westboro morons are allowed to say whatever crazy things they want about gays.
And thank goodness for it.
Do you really want the government having the authority to decided what ideas and beliefs people are allowed to have?
Our government does it all the time.
You're allowed to be a KKK member, but you're not allowed to berate black people on the street. You'll be given a disturbance charge at the very least. There are certain behaviors that are, in fact, criminal, without being directly violent.
Treason trumps everything. You do not have "free speech" to provoke the death of Americans.
Well the KKK is a special case.
They gave up their right to free speech with acts of violence and domestic terrorism that forced the FBI to treat them as a criminal organization.
The Westboro Baptists are in many ways preaching WORSE shit than the KKK used to, but we tolerate them (albeit with clenched teeth) because they are just using words, the minute they start acting on the shit they preach with bombs, lynch mobs and automatic weapons, you can guarantee they'll lose their freedom of speech, and none of us will bat an eye at it.
They will never lose freedom of speech (and rightly so). If they start "acting" on things, they will be arrested for the crimes they commit. That's different than losing freedom of speech.
Well, think about it for a second.
It used to be OK to walk in the streets of Washington DC, dressed in full KKK regalia, espousing their rhetoric,
Do you think that organization will ever be able to, or that individuals will ever be able to do anything like that again? Absolutely not. Why? Because the uniforms and rhetoric of that organization is now years later so closely linked to the real violence committed by that organization that it's no longer deemed free speech, but rather hate speech and threatens to incite violence.
Yea...you're wrong. Is it likely that we will ever see a large KKK march again? No. Is it legal? Yes.
There's enshrined legality in doing these kind of things, but equally law enforcement and the likes stop have de facto powers in stopping such rallies if they feel it affects public order. Just look at how some of the Occupy protests were treated when they were going on.
Sad event, sad we're having yet another discussion after another one of these shitstorms again. Fucking ridiculous people.
The reason the occupy protests were shut down were because they were either:
1) Occupying someone else's land for an indefinite period of time. The parks belonged to the city, so the city had a right to not allow people to camp there indefinitely. Plenty of warnings were given before people were arrested/tents taken down.
2) They blocked traffic. Something like 500 people were arrested for blocking the Brooklyn bridge, but that's only because they were blocking a vital transportation route that NYC really depends on.
Those were the two main ones, covered the most and yes those examples are correct. I've heard plenty of stories of both non-invasive protests, and individual protestors being broken up/arrested and what have you. Alas none of my sources over here given that I'm at my girlfriend's place
Yeah I was just thinking about the ones in NYC. I don't know about what went on at the hundreds of other rallies across the country.
Also is the offending movie the one listed in the OP with the Youtube embed? How in the name of Zeus himself did that piece of shit cost five million dollars to make?
Good god this video has the production value of a kindergarten crayon drawing. People really shouldn't get pissed off over this. If anyone's going to be angry, it should be the idiots who paid to produce this.
Would be kind of funny if the film cost like 500k then he took the rest and went into hiding.
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote: For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
My guess is that they thought the story would 'incite racial hatred' from right-wingers or something.
On September 13 2012 14:09 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Good god this video has the production value of a kindergarten crayon drawing. People really shouldn't get pissed off over this. If anyone's going to be angry, it should be the idiots who paid to produce this.
Would be kind of funny if the film cost like 500k then he took the rest and went into hiding.
man + X = Islamic terrorist that is some serious math right there!
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote: For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
Do you think it's the Swedish government or just media corporations trying not to give themselves a bad image? I hope it's the latter.
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
First, who says anyone has to participate in these demonstrations? Second, isn't it better to allow an open expression of thought and address it with rational discussion rather than suppress and silence it and have it boil over into violence? The true test of a free society is when our principles are challenged, not cherry picked in politically correct easier times.
re your first point: I think you misunderstood why I'm talking about this analogy, so I'll just ask you to reread the page. if that doesn't clear things up, feel free to bring it up again.
second: yes, it is. I don't think that was the cause of the Libyan attack, though. (afaik their religious views weren't being suppressed here)
On September 13 2012 13:15 fluidin wrote: I wonder if it would be feasible for the rest of the world to just start producing and releasing videos and material mocking Muhammed, every single week, in a bid to rid these people of their overzealous sensitivity. Perhaps then they will be forced to learn that there is no place in the world for this kind of behavior. While mocking another's religion is not right, taking another human being's life for it is far, far worse.
you're joking, right?
let's say a white guy in a bad part of town makes a racist remark and gets shot by some black guys. you're effectively proposing that staging KKK marches all over the country every week in response will relieve racial tensions.
The 2 things aren't even close to being the same thing.
Mocking something like religion, and hating someone for the color of their skin ;\
I believe you're incorrect, but if you want to keep it about religion:
let's say a Christian in a bad part of town makes an off-colour joke and gets shot by some Jews. you're effectively proposing that staging neo-Nazi demonstrations all over the country every week in response will relieve religious tensions.
Not the same. Note how people can actually mock Jews with cartoons and movies and they don't protest worldwide and murder ambassadors for it.
actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote: For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
Wow, seriously? What is the motivation for the censorship? Has sweden become so liberal that they even want to surpress truth now?
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote: For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
Wow, seriously? What is the motivation for the censorship? Has sweden become so liberal that they even want to surpress truth now?
They've become so liberal that they're conservative.
edit: I should also add that I might have been wrong about this not being partially planned ahead, Sean Smith apparently noticed one of the "guards" that was supposed to be protecting them taking photos of the compound earlier:
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
You already cant shout fire in a crowded theatre as the classic example of limited speach and if you are making something, fully aware that people will die because of it, then you are no better than the first example.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
edit: also, if you haven't read the previous page, please do that. just to head off any potential misunderstanding.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
After a certain point, they have no choice but to grow that thicker skin. Or WW3 will happen. And I doubt they're stupid enough to let that happen. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, man.
I'm saying that there needs to be a change of views from their side, and I'm not sure the optimal way to go about it, with my example as something I put out there while I wonder about its feasibility.
It's interesting watching CNN. They're talking about how some of the actors in the movie weren't aware that the movie was about shitting on the Prophet Mohammed.
Don't expect a massive special forces raid more than likely things will quiet down on the media side of things and the US will do what it does best.
The US has bases all over the world including the middle east and if one has the chance to visit one of these areas you will notice some persons that frequent the bases are not in uniform yet tend to rest and "relax" on these sites, they wear civilian clothes and are almost always clean shaven. When asked what they do they tend to be described as civilian contractors i.e Engineers, Electricians etc. They are always ex military. They are mercenaries.
The Militants are more than likely already identified or the ring leaders are close to being found out. Make no mistake fellow citizens will identify them especially when it comes to monetary help. Very slowly but like clock work people will start to disappear or "arrests" will be made yet no further information than that.
I cannot believe any group of humans would do something this violent, senseless and destructive over a fucking video. I can't believe someone would make a cartoon with the implicit hope that such senseless violence would occur. IMO, the people that made the video are almost as bad as the islamists who reacted to it. Both of them showed no regard at all for the lives of innocents - of, in fact, dedicated and brave individuals trying to make a positive difference in a country not even their own. Ultimately the blame is with the killers though; How do you get to a point where you just don't give a shit and start blasting away at people who are essentially trying to help you and your country. It's sickening, and while I don't blame islam, i have just gained a renewed appreciation for the plague that is Islamic extremism. I really hope the Libyan people can find a way to expunge these terrorists from their soil and their state. I also would like to give a great big fuck you to the producers of that anti Islam film for choosing to spread their message in the most inflammatory, "let's see how many deaths we can indirectly cause" manner possible, while operating from the relative safety of US soil.
Of all the things a Libyan person might care about right now, they choose to go on a rampage over a video...
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
After a certain point, they have no choice but to grow that thicker skin. Or WW3 will happen. And I doubt they're stupid enough to let that happen. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, man.
I'm saying that there needs to be a change of views from their side, and I'm not sure the optimal way to go about it, with my example as something I put out there while I wonder about its feasibility.
there are religious extremists (suicide bombers) who literally kill themselves trying to harm others. I wouldn't bet on them being unwilling to enter a mutually destructive war.
I agree that a lot of the change needs to come from them, and I'm glad you're willing to argue a stance that I would initially have dismissed as "stupid". that's why I like these threads on TL - people aren't afraid to bring up and defend their own solutions so we can think critically about them. that said, I don't think it's viable.
I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
On September 13 2012 15:30 Zahir wrote: I cannot believe any group of humans would do something this violent, senseless and destructive over a fucking video. I can't believe someone would make a cartoon with the implicit hope that such senseless violence would occur. IMO, the people that made the video are almost as bad as the islamists who reacted to it. Both of them showed no regard at all for the lives of innocents - of, in fact, dedicated and brave individuals trying to make a positive difference in a country not even their own. Ultimately the blame is with the killers though; How do you get to a point where you just don't give a shit and start blasting away at people who are essentially trying to help you and your country. It's sickening, and while I don't blame islam, i have just gained a renewed appreciation for the plague that is Islamic extremism. I really hope the Libyan people can find a way to expunge these terrorists from their soil and their state. I also would like to give a great big fuck you to the producers of that anti Islam film for choosing to spread their message in the most inflammatory, "let's see how many deaths we can indirectly cause" manner possible, while operating from the relative safety of US soil.
Of all the things a Libyan person might care about right now, they choose to go on a rampage over a video...
keep in mind, these guys were probably violently anti-American to begin with. it's not just the video, but the video makes a convenient excuse and rallying point.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
After a certain point, they have no choice but to grow that thicker skin. Or WW3 will happen. And I doubt they're stupid enough to let that happen. But that's not the point I'm trying to make, man.
I'm saying that there needs to be a change of views from their side, and I'm not sure the optimal way to go about it, with my example as something I put out there while I wonder about its feasibility.
there are religious extremists (suicide bombers) who literally kill themselves trying to harm others. I wouldn't bet on them being unwilling to enter a mutually destructive war.
I agree that a lot of the change needs to come from them, and I'm glad you're willing to argue a stance that I would initially have dismissed as "stupid". that's why I like these threads on TL - people aren't afraid to bring up and defend their own solutions so we can think critically about them. that said, I don't think it's viable.
I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
The onus is not on me to appease a potentially violent fundamentalist by ensuring he knows I'm a guy just like he is. The onus is on him to not shoot me. You're blaming the victims here.
The way to precipitate real change is to call out shitty behavior when it happens, criticize the hell out of bigoted belief systems that encourage such behavior, and to retaliate with overwhelming force when people engage in such behavior. You know, the same way we deal with all crime.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
edit: yeah, I see your second post. please reread.
edit2: holy shit bro I have no idea what you think I'm saying
No one can defend the killers for sure, and no one in this thread is as far as I read.
That said, what in the world is that movie in the OP? Criticizing anohter religion is fine, but purposefully offending people of another religion is not OK. Freedom of speech is a better idea than thousands of years of censorship that came from dictatorship, one of the most common form of social structure in human history. But when I see these people who abuse the idea, I feel freedom of speech needs to be restricted at some point of human history in like 200-300 years time. We don't want to go back to the world of censorship, so careful consideration will be needed and it will take time. Freedom of speech is overvalued today in my opinion. Some people do stupid things under the protection of "freedom of speech" because it is hard to criticize the idea itself in today's society.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
Mass mockery of uncivilized, infantile, violent belief systems is a form of criticism.
Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do.
Is there an armed faction in Libya that wants war with the US? And if so, are they aware our defense budget is like 10x the total GDP of their entire country.
On September 13 2012 15:52 NovaTheFeared wrote: Is there an armed faction in Libya that wants war with the US? And if so, are they aware our defense budget is like 10x the total GDP of their entire country.
Considering that members of such groups also engage in things like suicide bombing, I doubt they care.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
Mass mockery of uncivilized, bigoted, violent beliefs is a form of criticism.
Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do.
very interesting. but Islam is not uncivilized or violent. bigoted, I don't know. it doesn't have to be. Muslims span the whole spectrum from militant extremists to the most progressive of people. there's no reason someone who practices Islam can't be civilized, unbigoted, and peaceful.
On September 13 2012 15:52 NovaTheFeared wrote: Is there an armed faction in Libya that wants war with the US? And if so, are they aware our defense budget is like 10x the total GDP of their entire country.
The idea that having 10x the total GDP of a country prevents war is wrong in some cases. Sometimes, it is more important to show the spirit than actual win/loss.
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
Mass mockery of uncivilized, bigoted, violent beliefs is a form of criticism.
Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do.
very interesting. but Islam is not uncivilized or violent. bigoted, I don't know. it doesn't have to be. Muslims span the whole spectrum from militant extremists to the most progressive of people. there's no reason someone who practices Islam can't be civilized, unbigoted, and peaceful.
Just because the members of a religion span a spectrum doesn't mean change the fact that the religion itself advocates something. For example, not all Christians may be anti-gay, but Christianity as a belief system is anti-gay. The fact that not all Christians are 100% true believers doesn't change the fact that their belief system is bigoted.
Similarly, Islam as a religion sanctions violence and holy war against unbelievers, and the fact that not all Muslims follow their religion so strictly doesn't change the fact that they follow a violent belief system.
On September 13 2012 15:59 starfries wrote: edit: yeah, it's not infantile either, sorry bro
Any belief system that explains the world using "God said so" is infantile. Civilized adults use things like logic, reason, and science, rather than making shit up and arguing from authority.
This is really sad... It's always the extremists that get all the media attention and thus the bais, I have Muslim friends and they are shocked by this as well. Now this will lead to a couple of dumbfucks around the globe to run the Islam hate bandwagon again...
On September 13 2012 14:18 starfries wrote: actually, there are cases of violent Jewish extremism. but do you still stand by your original sentiment that mass provocation is a viable solution for eliminating violent extremism? I mean, that was the whole reason I brought up the analogy, not "suggesting this makes you a Nazi"
Hm? I was just wondering if it was a viable solution in this case of violent extremism (When did I say it can be used for other extremism cases?). It's not so much about eliminating it as taking away grounds for such people to justify it.
by provoking them? ok, so you only think it's a viable solution in this case. but do you really think providing extremists with more ammunition will help in any way? you'll be legitimizing their perception of the West as anti-Islam, and probably turn more people into violent extremists, as well as alienate the more moderate ones. no, they won't grow a thicker skin because of it - they'll just hate you.
Then we clash, don't we?
Why would we sacrifice something as critical as freedom of speech, just because someone gets angry over it? There can be no freedom of speech when any group gets to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.
When did anyone ever give this authority? When did we declare them the censor? By what right do they think they can demand anything from western countries?
Just for the record, Islam forbids any depiction of prophets, not just the prophet. Should Christians be tolerant and remove depictions of Jesus from their church?
People are bowing down to the most extreme, but there are also the even sicker people that masquarade as moderates whilst threatening with exactly these acts:
"Well, I'm moderate, and violence is wrong, but you really shouldn't do this, who knows what they might do!"
Your hands are no less filthy when you make use of these violent acts, no matter how much you distance yourself from them. If you try to use this violence to get what you want, to push for censorship, you're in bed with them.
I'm not sacrificing freedom of speech. I'm not saying you can't say provocative things. I'm saying it's a bad idea to respond to a religiously motivated attack by some nutcases with mass mockery of that religion.
Why is it a bad idea? When cults engage in violence, we criticize said cults. When Scientologists commit crimes we criticize Scientology. When Christians violently attack gays, we criticize Christians too.
We derogate every group that explicitly/tacitly encourages its members to do bad things on behalf of the group, and rightfully so, because such actions should be called out.
Why do you feel that Islam should be exempted from criticism? Because we should fear giving them more "ammunition"?
I'm not talking about criticism. good lord, do people only read the last post before responding?
Mass mockery of uncivilized, bigoted, violent beliefs is a form of criticism.
Purposely offending those who hold such beliefs is not only permissable, it's the right thing to do.
very interesting. but Islam is not uncivilized or violent. bigoted, I don't know. it doesn't have to be. Muslims span the whole spectrum from militant extremists to the most progressive of people. there's no reason someone who practices Islam can't be civilized, unbigoted, and peaceful.
Just because the members of a religion span a spectrum doesn't mean change the fact that the religion itself advocates something. For example, not all Christians may be anti-gay, but Christianity as a belief system is anti-gay. The fact that not all Christians are 100% true believers doesn't change the fact that their belief system is bigoted.
Similarly, Islam as a religion sanctions violence and holy war against unbelievers, and the fact that not all Muslims follow their religion so strictly doesn't change the fact that they follow a violent belief system.
On September 13 2012 15:59 starfries wrote: edit: yeah, it's not infantile either, sorry bro
Any belief system that explains the world using "God said so" is infantile. Civilized adults use things like logic, reason, and science, rather than making shit up and arguing from authority.
um. I really don't want to get into a religious debate here. nor do I want to be banned. PM me if you really care to hear my response to these statements.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
I mean think of how sad loosing those ~3000 people in 9/11 was. Think how sad it must then feel for the Iraqis who've lost in the least ~66.000 civilians(Classified USA logs). You cannot force peace onto people when they have a very rational reason to hate you.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
There was NEVER an appeasment policy towards these countries from the west. They got exploited for as long as possible and now even small "insults" are enough to imflame them.
On September 13 2012 17:45 Velr wrote: There was NEVER an appeasment policy towards these countries from the west.
Certain people in this thread are suggesting that we should refrain from offending Muslims in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. That's appeasement.
Thankfully, we've never enacted such a policy.
On September 13 2012 17:45 Velr wrote: They got exploited for as long as possible and now even small "insults" are enough to imflame them.
Yeah, and that means it's okay for them to suicide bomb civilians when they feel offended, amirite?
Y'know who got ridiculously exploited? China and India. Do you see either of them engaging in terrorism at the slightest provocation? Nope, they got over it and are rapidly developing into major world powers. It probably helps that the cultures/belief systems of China and India don't encourage violence and holy war at the first percieved insult.
On September 13 2012 14:01 TheSwedishFan wrote: For some reason, swedish media is censoring this. Doesn't even make it on the front page. Was completely removed from one popular swedish news site.
Wow, seriously? What is the motivation for the censorship? Has sweden become so liberal that they even want to surpress truth now?
They've become so liberal that they're conservative.
edit: I should also add that I might have been wrong about this not being partially planned ahead, Sean Smith apparently noticed one of the "guards" that was supposed to be protecting them taking photos of the compound earlier:
That makes me so sad to read that... I can't imagine why anyone would defend these peoples actions. It's disgusting what people hiding behind religion can away with. Cases like Rushide are seriously horrifying. How can we allow the few bad apple to keep acting out like this under the guise of religion.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
We didn't exactly do that in Libya, yet here we are...
On September 13 2012 18:07 Zarahtra wrote: I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
starfries was specifically talking about offending Muslims with mass mockery. It's one thing to suggest that we should refrain from invading Arab countries and killing civilians. It's quite another to suggest that we should refrain from offending a group to prevent them from engaging in terrorism against us.
If anything, it is always smart not to offend anyone if possible. Criticizing is not always offending. There are ways to criticize something without purposefully offending people. It's not like your only way of survival is by offending others. I guess we should refrain from offendinding a group just because it is offensive, no other reason needed. Intentionally offending people sounds ridiculous.
Wouldn't it be great if the Radical Muslims would just issue a statement instead of going haywire and killing people. This would be my statement if I were them;
We are very very upset about the muhammed movie. Therefore we wish no longer to talk or have any ties with the movie makers and their funders. Furthermore we hope that other non-muslim support us in thinking this is mockery which serves no purpose whatsoever except spewing hate. We would greatly appreciate condemnation of this movie by the Western World. Could you please hold a rally and wave signs saying 'Please stop slandering Islam, it serves no purpose' or something along those lines. We should focus on working together instead of hating eachtother.
Yours Truly,
A newly reformed Radical Islam
I would love an attitude like that but we seem far from it sadly.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
We didn't exactly do that in Libya, yet here we are...
While that is true, I'm more speaking in a general scope on this, mostly due to the talks of Al Quada likely being behind/linked to the attack.
On September 13 2012 18:07 Zarahtra wrote: I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
starfries was specifically talking about offending Muslims with mass mockery. It's one thing to suggest that we should refrain from invading Arab countries and killing civilians. It's quite another to suggest that we should refrain from offending a group to prevent them from engaging in terrorism against us.
I'd argue my point is closely related to starfries's. Their hate for the western world stems both from some peoples lack of respect we have for their culture and religion and the killing of civilians.
I maybe should've specified that I'm more speaking at the whole state of the (greater) middle east, rather than just Libya(since in Libya that embassador was really well liked), aswell as assuming this wasn't just retaliation for the film. Apologeze for not being clear on that.
On September 13 2012 19:11 frontliner2 wrote: Wouldn't it be great if the Radical Muslims would just issue a statement instead of going haywire and killing people. This would be my statement if I were them;
We are very very upset about the muhammed movie. Therefore we wish no longer to talk or have any ties with the movie makers and their funders. Furthermore we hope that other non-muslim support us in thinking this is mockery which serves no purpose whatsoever except spewing hate. We would greatly appreciate condemnation of this movie by the Western World. Could you please hold a rally and wave signs saying 'Please stop slandering Islam, it serves no purpose' or something along those lines. We should focus on working together instead of hating eachtother.
Yours Truly,
A newly reformed Radical Islam
I would love an attitude like that but we seem far from it sadly.
They have before, issuing complaints and more peaceful protests (and many death threats). Remember, this is not the first incident, and there have been several before it. Yet some people can't seem to refrain from offending others. Not much we can do to be honest, other than condemn them verbally.
On September 13 2012 19:11 frontliner2 wrote: Wouldn't it be great if the Radical Muslims would just issue a statement instead of going haywire and killing people. This would be my statement if I were them;
We are very very upset about the muhammed movie. Therefore we wish no longer to talk or have any ties with the movie makers and their funders. Furthermore we hope that other non-muslim support us in thinking this is mockery which serves no purpose whatsoever except spewing hate. We would greatly appreciate condemnation of this movie by the Western World. Could you please hold a rally and wave signs saying 'Please stop slandering Islam, it serves no purpose' or something along those lines. We should focus on working together instead of hating eachtother.
Yours Truly,
A newly reformed Radical Islam
I would love an attitude like that but we seem far from it sadly.
And news station like CNN should have covered this story. Then, people in the Western World would have condemned the movie and moviemakers. Sadly, some people don't learn and keep offending others. Price is paid by innocent others who have nothing to do with it. Killers are guilty for sure, but movie makers are guilty as well in my eyes. If I were the family of the killed, I would condemn the movie makers just as hard as the killers.
Watched the 13 minute film. That was the most shit-tier production quality I have ever seen, for lack of a better phrase. Anyone in their right minds would brush it off as someone being stupid and wasting their time, without the need to take this charged offense over it. Sure it's targeting religion and I can understand being upset. But killing people and storming into live rounds of ammunition in multiple U.S. embassies abroad? Now this is getting batshit insanely retarded. There are so many things that go around in western cultures, in our media-rich, interconnected world that we do to offend each other! And there are likely millions of different things that will piss millions of different people off if they find them, but ONE, ONE ultra-low budget YouTube video that might have been forgotten the next day is turned into this absurd political episode throwing instability where it is least needed.
This is why I'll never be a PC cultural relativist, and always support countries like Israel etc. etc.
Even if the film is shit, was it necessary to kill people who had NOTHING to do with it? Seriously, some people are too much into religion, and need to calm down and identify who really did it. I'll refrain from naming specific religions due to the thread's warning, but I hope the world becomes less religion extreme.
On September 13 2012 20:02 darkness wrote: Even if the film is shit, was it necessary to kill people who had NOTHING to do with it? Seriously, some people are too much into religion, and need to calm down and identify who really did it. I'll refrain from naming specific religions due to the thread's warning, but I hope the world becomes less religion extreme.
The last reports say that people got killed by militants that used the protests as a diversion to carry on the attacks against the embassy.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
We didn't exactly do that in Libya, yet here we are...
While that is true, I'm more speaking in a general scope on this, mostly due to the talks of Al Quada likely being behind/linked to the attack.
Given this, refraining from offending them achieves nothing, unless you are arguing that we should prevent terrorism by voluntarily converting to Islam and replacing our government with a Wahhabi caliphate. I suppose that would stop offending them.
On September 13 2012 18:07 Zarahtra wrote: I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
starfries was specifically talking about offending Muslims with mass mockery. It's one thing to suggest that we should refrain from invading Arab countries and killing civilians. It's quite another to suggest that we should refrain from offending a group to prevent them from engaging in terrorism against us.
I'd argue my point is closely related to starfries's. Their hate for the western world stems both from some peoples lack of respect we have for their culture and religion and the killing of civilians.
You missed the fact that their hatred stems also from the fact that their religion specifically instructs them to wage holy war on unbelievers and unite everyone under Islamic rule.
The idea that "respecting" violent criminals will appease them is incredibly naive. It just means they'll find a different excuse for their crimes.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
We didn't exactly do that in Libya, yet here we are...
While that is true, I'm more speaking in a general scope on this, mostly due to the talks of Al Quada likely being behind/linked to the attack.
Given this, refraining from offending them achieves nothing, unless you are arguing that we should prevent terrorism by voluntarily converting to Islam and replacing our government with a Wahhabi caliphate. I suppose that would stop offending them.
On September 13 2012 18:07 Zarahtra wrote: I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
starfries was specifically talking about offending Muslims with mass mockery. It's one thing to suggest that we should refrain from invading Arab countries and killing civilians. It's quite another to suggest that we should refrain from offending a group to prevent them from engaging in terrorism against us.
I'd argue my point is closely related to starfries's. Their hate for the western world stems both from some peoples lack of respect we have for their culture and religion and the killing of civilians.
You missed the fact that their hatred stems also from the fact that their religion specifically instructs them to wage holy war on unbelievers and unite everyone under Islamic rule.
The idea that "respecting" violent criminals will appease them is incredibly naive. It just means they'll find a different excuse for their crimes.
Pretty sure we've already been over this. The murderers were not people who were enraged because of the video - they were an organized, militant group making use of the situation. You don't have to respect al-Qaeda or other terrorists, but don't lump them with the majority of Muslims who were just expressing their frustration and nothing else.
On September 13 2012 20:02 darkness wrote: Even if the film is shit, was it necessary to kill people who had NOTHING to do with it? Seriously, some people are too much into religion, and need to calm down and identify who really did it. I'll refrain from naming specific religions due to the thread's warning, but I hope the world becomes less religion extreme.
The last reports say that people got killed by militants that used the protests as a diversion to carry on the attacks against the embassy.
Yep the protest wasn't even very big at first. Then pickups with heavily armed guys arrived and everything escalated. This was a planned attack staged as a protest.
I started watching the video against my better judgement. So weird. I have less than no idea what they thought they were making. Wonder what actually will end up happening about the maker/funders/whatever.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
We didn't exactly do that in Libya, yet here we are...
While that is true, I'm more speaking in a general scope on this, mostly due to the talks of Al Quada likely being behind/linked to the attack.
Given this, refraining from offending them achieves nothing, unless you are arguing that we should prevent terrorism by voluntarily converting to Islam and replacing our government with a Wahhabi caliphate. I suppose that would stop offending them.
On September 13 2012 18:07 Zarahtra wrote: I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
starfries was specifically talking about offending Muslims with mass mockery. It's one thing to suggest that we should refrain from invading Arab countries and killing civilians. It's quite another to suggest that we should refrain from offending a group to prevent them from engaging in terrorism against us.
I'd argue my point is closely related to starfries's. Their hate for the western world stems both from some peoples lack of respect we have for their culture and religion and the killing of civilians.
You missed the fact that their hatred stems also from the fact that their religion specifically instructs them to wage holy war on unbelievers and unite everyone under Islamic rule.
The idea that "respecting" violent criminals will appease them is incredibly naive. It just means they'll find a different excuse for their crimes.
User was warned for this post
My main point is, I very much doubt all Al-Quaeda members grew up hating USA and felt it was their mission in life to blow themselves up. Some undoubtably do, but western countries need to stop making it easier for them to recruit others.
While I certainly don't think people should roll over against terrorism, you need realize that sometimes the actions taken to exterminate terrorism, instead grows it. I like Cenk Uygur a lot, and he made a similar point(expressed a lot better and with data at hand) a few months back(this concerning Yemen): Linkie
On September 13 2012 21:23 Velr wrote: Why? For us reading in the media about who made it and then telling it here whiteout any way of knowing better?
In short; the blame towards Israel in this thread was nothing more than ignorantly scapegoating the first given target with a mob mentality. When it comes to Israel, Islam and basically any other group that is in the news, a lot of people feel that way, so I am not surprised. Because even if it's a lie, people will ignore that fact because it is comfortable for them. It's nice to ignore when you are dead wrong.
Spreading hate on the basis of a lie is wrong. Spreading it on the basis of truth is questionable. The attacks on the embassies were planned acts of Islamist extremists, that used the actions of a somewhat disturbed provocateur as an excuse.
wow, thanks for posting those pics. Quite moving. I actually feel awful now about some of the views on this thread, because I was inclined to agree with them.
On September 13 2012 15:35 starfries wrote: I think a better way to precipitate real change is to cater to the more level-headed majority. if we show them they have no reason to hate us, then less people will support violent extremist movements. the ones that are left will lack influence and the resources to pull off major acts of terrorism. I mean, your average Muslim in America is not going to shoot you for drawing a picture of Mohammed - but it's not because you've been taunting him with pictures of Mohammed every week. it's because he knows you're just a guy like he is, not some kind of monster.
This I feel is a very good post. I feel the western world(and USA in particular) need to realize this and stop creating ammunition for the terrorist groups to then fuel in the heart of just the average muslim(and arab too). The obvious sad part about it is, there is really no short term solution to do this. At some point, western world needs to just step up and be the bigger man.
So when people suicide bomb you for drawing their prophet, you think the solution is to stop drawing their prophet? How about when they then proceed to suicide bomb you for opposing their political interests, will you do what they want? How about when they suicide bomb you for not worshipping their deity, will you convert?
At what point will you realize that the cowardly strategy of appeasement simply boils down to giving violent criminals what they want out of fear?
I'm not saying that you should refrain from that. The solution isn't to tip toe around certain ethnic groups, but it most certainly isn't about bombing everyone between yourself and a terrorist organisation. My point is, going into countries, killing civilians and going "woops" doesn't help.
We didn't exactly do that in Libya, yet here we are...
While that is true, I'm more speaking in a general scope on this, mostly due to the talks of Al Quada likely being behind/linked to the attack.
Given this, refraining from offending them achieves nothing, unless you are arguing that we should prevent terrorism by voluntarily converting to Islam and replacing our government with a Wahhabi caliphate. I suppose that would stop offending them.
On September 13 2012 19:17 Zarahtra wrote:
On September 13 2012 18:35 sunprince wrote:
On September 13 2012 18:07 Zarahtra wrote: I feel you are acting like muslims as a whole are evil human beings that cannot be reasoned with. That's just shortsighted, like I said, they have a very good reason to hate the western world, and we need to stop giving them the reason. If we don't, there will always be a minority of truly evil people that will keep exploiting that hate and getting those people armed. Now you tell me, if I killed your mother and you had a gun in your hand, would I walk away alive?
starfries was specifically talking about offending Muslims with mass mockery. It's one thing to suggest that we should refrain from invading Arab countries and killing civilians. It's quite another to suggest that we should refrain from offending a group to prevent them from engaging in terrorism against us.
I'd argue my point is closely related to starfries's. Their hate for the western world stems both from some peoples lack of respect we have for their culture and religion and the killing of civilians.
You missed the fact that their hatred stems also from the fact that their religion specifically instructs them to wage holy war on unbelievers and unite everyone under Islamic rule.
The idea that "respecting" violent criminals will appease them is incredibly naive. It just means they'll find a different excuse for their crimes.
User was warned for this post
My main point is, I very much doubt all Al-Quaeda members grew up hating USA and felt it was their mission in life to blow themselves up. Some undoubtably do, but western countries need to stop making it easier for them to recruit others.
While I certainly don't think people should roll over against terrorism, you need realize that sometimes the actions taken to exterminate terrorism, instead grows it. I like Cenk Uygur a lot, and he made a similar point(expressed a lot better and with data at hand) a few months back(this concerning Yemen): Linkie
No they just hate everyone that don't share or believe in their same belief and ideology. They hate anything and anyone that steps or sneezes anywhere near their principle which in this case was their religious prophet
moral of story from this event some users here need to learn: It is ok to hate the extremist. Bunch of ignorant pricks. But it is not OK to hate on an entire religion or group as the pictures above have shown. Not everyone in a group they are affiliated with are a hateful bunch.
I was saddened to hear the news of the attack. Now I'm just not feeling well from all the bigoted hate. This is almost as bad as the beginning of 9/11 where US people were throwing rocks and shit at people that had a shred of Arabic heritage
Jihad is not generally read to mean "war against everyone". It's been declared via fatwa's by a small number of religious scholars that the militant adhere to. It's as if Catholics could follow whichever bishop they wanted to instead of the pope. One stupid bishop could stamp his approval on a new age of crusades and the followers could justify it by saying "but it's the work of god."
Jihad is one of the most misunderstood terms in the West.
I'm far from the thought all christians are innocent and don't commit crime, but some more extreme muslims get too angry at some religious provocation. They need to relax more, and let no innocent people die.
I'm far from the thought all christians are innocent and don't commit crime, but some more extreme muslims get too angry at some religious provocation. They need to relax more, and let no innocent people die.
Religion is still too influtial within the society of those parts of the world. So you will have in influx of more religious people and with that more extreme religious people ( still a minority but nonetheless bigger than elsewhere ). There exist very religious christians and also a few fundamentalist christians as well BUT within our societies they are outnumbered by such a larger number and don't have any role in goverment that this doesn't matter because there voice will never really be heard or taken seriously. When Christianity was more influential politically a few hundred years ago it wasn't much better here either.
wow, thanks for posting those pics. Quite moving. I actually feel awful now about some of the views on this thread, because I was inclined to agree with them.
The riot was huge. The "we're sorry" people are so tiny compared to the people who rioted. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're sorry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the riot. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're sorry, we were wrong Islam is fine"?
Starting not to judge a Religion 1.8 Billion or just about 1/8 of all mankind is following based on some extremists and the pack mentality evolving during riots.
wow, thanks for posting those pics. Quite moving. I actually feel awful now about some of the views on this thread, because I was inclined to agree with them.
The riot was huge. The "we're sorry" people are so tiny compared to the people who rioted. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're sorry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the riot. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're sorry, we were wrong Islam is fine"?
No of course. You're supposed to do the same thing than you did (that you should have done in fact...) when you compared the 1.5 billion muslim with the size of the riot. Put things in perspective.
EDIT : To be more accurate, after the riot you should have say : "The muslim community is huge. The "we're angry" people are so tiny compared to the people who live peacefully. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're angry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the muslim people. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're angery, we were wrong Islam is evil!"?"
Omfg, if the actress is right, he's not even Israeli, so he's pushing even more responsiblity onto other people. This guy needs to answer for his irresponsibility. Not commenting on the content of the film but his scam and his unwillingness to bear any responsibility.
wow, thanks for posting those pics. Quite moving. I actually feel awful now about some of the views on this thread, because I was inclined to agree with them.
The riot was huge. The "we're sorry" people are so tiny compared to the people who rioted. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're sorry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the riot. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're sorry, we were wrong Islam is fine"?
No of course. You're supposed to do the same thing than you did (that you should have done in fact...) when you compared the 1.5 billion muslim with the size of the riot. Put things in perspective.
EDIT : To be more accurate, after the riot you should have say : "The muslim community is huge. The "we're angry" people are so tiny compared to the people who live peacefully. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're angry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the muslim people. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're angery, we were wrong Islam is evil!"?"
But you just hate. Classic, but exhausting...
When did I compare every muslim to the rioters? I'd love to see where I said that.
All I'm saying is the riot had way more people than the "anti-riot" did. Am I wrong?
So just so people are on the up and up, there are some reports coming out right now that the actors have distanced themselves from the film, saying that a lot of the derogatory dialogue and statements made in the film were dubbed over to include the Prophet and Mohammed.
Also, to the people who can't understand the angry reactions, please try and understand that this is a culture and part of the world that has been maligned and exploited by the West - British and U.S. - for a long time. Also, they see this trailer of a film that they think is going to be distributed to thousands of theater around the U.S. basically maligning the figure that is a symbol for their religion, principles, and way of life.
Even sadder still is that this film and trailer may have been released just to incite this kind of violence. Whoever perpetrated this act specifically deserves our criticism, not Muslims as a whole.
On September 14 2012 00:03 suspiria wrote: So just so people are on the up and up, there are some reports coming out right now that the actors have distanced themselves from the film, saying that a lot of the derogatory dialogue and statements made in the film were dubbed over to include the Prophet and Mohammed.
Also, to the people who can't understand the angry reactions, please try and understand that this is a culture and part of the world that has been maligned and exploited by the West - British and U.S. - for a long time. Also, they see this trailer of a film that they think is going to be distributed to thousands of theater around the U.S. basically maligning the figure that is a symbol for their religion, principles, and way of life.
Even sadder still is that this film and trailer may have been released just to incite this kind of violence. Whoever perpetrated this act specifically deserves our criticism, not Muslims as a whole.
I agree, we should be angry with the murderous mob and with the idiots releasing this BS film with it's intent to have riots started in the first place.
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
Any hate is cancer, period.
Too much hate already on this post, don't forget what started it, a guy who deliberatly released a movie which was going to have consequences. And in top of that, a shit-ass movie.
wow, thanks for posting those pics. Quite moving. I actually feel awful now about some of the views on this thread, because I was inclined to agree with them.
The riot was huge. The "we're sorry" people are so tiny compared to the people who rioted. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're sorry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the riot. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're sorry, we were wrong Islam is fine"?
No of course. You're supposed to do the same thing than you did (that you should have done in fact...) when you compared the 1.5 billion muslim with the size of the riot. Put things in perspective.
EDIT : To be more accurate, after the riot you should have say : "The muslim community is huge. The "we're angry" people are so tiny compared to the people who live peacefully. Notice how the pictures are so close up - trying to show less people, because the "we're angry" (protest?) pales in size comparison to the muslim people. What are we supposed to do now? "Oh, looks like they're angery, we were wrong Islam is evil!"?"
But you just hate. Classic, but exhausting...
When did I compare every muslim to the rioters? I'd love to see where I said that.
All I'm saying is the riot had way more people than the "anti-riot" did. Am I wrong?
Your right, but it's not all what your saying.
"Oh, looks like they're sorry, we were wrong Islam is fine". So you considere it's bad, am I wrong?
And if you think this way, it's because you didn't put in perspective the number of rioters and the 1.8 billion muslim. Muslims who didn't killed anybody (and don't hate USA) are way more than the rioters.
I'm just using the same arguments to proove the opposite of what you're saying.
On September 13 2012 22:47 BluePanther wrote: Jihad is not generally read to mean "war against everyone". It's been declared via fatwa's by a small number of religious scholars that the militant adhere to. It's as if Catholics could follow whichever bishop they wanted to instead of the pope. One stupid bishop could stamp his approval on a new age of crusades and the followers could justify it by saying "but it's the work of god."
Jihad is one of the most misunderstood terms in the West.
If you knew how Islamic denominations are formed, you would understand that saying:
"Jihad is"
is in itself ignorant.
The awful truth is that depending on the reading and which hadiths are ignored and which are embraced, both views of Jihad (internal and external) are true.
Hadiths are either well sourced, or poorly sourced, but that doesn't matter.
If you have a scientific report on what Jihad means, I can still choose to believe that my best friend knows better.
The reliability of a hadith has no meaning. People will pick the ones they want. The problem is that there are so many that you can paint any picture you like.
The truth, is that a muslim terrorist is no less accurate about Islam than a pacifist muslim.
So disgusting. That video wouldn't even be worth watching if it wasn't for this, and these idiots killed over it. Do they really believe the US government officials were the ones to attack over the youtube video? People are ridiculous.
On September 14 2012 00:59 Rah wrote: So disgusting. That video wouldn't even be worth watching if it wasn't for this, and these idiots killed over it. Do they really believe the US government officials were the ones to attack over the youtube video? People are ridiculous.
The killing was not done because of the video. It was an organized attack by a millitant group that had been attacking several targets in Lybia before. They just used the protest that was already happening as an excuse to do another one .
The people storming the Embassy and killing the 4 Americans AND quite a bunch of Lybians protecting them had been heavily armed and at least had to have some sort of military training . Even in Lybia a protest is not done with Assault Rifles and Rocket Launchers even if its a more violent one.
It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
So one cannot criticize islam, ever? Simply because you might offend muslims or for fear of the aftermath? Don't get me wrong from what i've seen of this movie so far it is anything but a legitimate movie using proper argumentation etc but it's still just that - a movie even if it's a biased pile of dung. I dont think he deserves any blame because guess what, as bad and poorly acted, written, filmed and produced that movie is it is still a movie and it is still freedom of speech being used. I don't know if it can be considered racist/hatecrime etc that would remove it from freedom of speech but still - it's a freaking movie, and an incredibly poorly made one at that. The protests are ridicilous.
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
Many fools live in this world, are governments responsible? The guy is obviously a dick but the people killing because of a insignificant video are 100% to blame.
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
So one cannot criticize islam, ever? Simply because you might offend muslims or for fear of the aftermath? Don't get me wrong from what i've seen of this movie so far it is anything but a legitimate movie using proper argumentation etc but it's still just that - a movie even if it's a biased pile of dung. I dont think he deserves any blame because guess what, as bad and poorly acted, written, filmed and produced that movie is it is still a movie and it is still freedom of speech being used. I don't know if it can be considered racist/hatecrime etc that would remove it from freedom of speech but still - it's a freaking movie, and an incredibly poorly made one at that. The protests are ridicilous.
Totally agree with you, but at the same time, let's not treat this in a bubble either. The straw that broke the camel's back was only a straw, after all.
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
So one cannot criticize islam, ever? Simply because you might offend muslims or for fear of the aftermath? Don't get me wrong from what i've seen of this movie so far it is anything but a legitimate movie using proper argumentation etc but it's still just that - a movie even if it's a biased pile of dung. I dont think he deserves any blame because guess what, as bad and poorly acted, written, filmed and produced that movie is it is still a movie and it is still freedom of speech being used. I don't know if it can be considered racist/hatecrime etc that would remove it from freedom of speech but still - it's a freaking movie, and an incredibly poorly made one at that. The protests are ridicilous.
If you do it knowing full well the aftermaths, then you better have a good explanation for it. Unless you're willing to martyr yourself for the cause of free speech, don't do it. I blame him for being a coward, effectively making the world his meat shield against Muslims angry over something HE did. Many people who participated in draw Mohammad day showed their faces and stood up for what they believed in. They did it as a group effort. It was something productive. This video is pure crap and it's not even educational. He didn't make much of a point and he got people killed while knowing it. Then he shirked all responsibility and ran away. If I'm angry over anything, it's over uncaring cowardice.
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
So one cannot criticize islam, ever? Simply because you might offend muslims or for fear of the aftermath? Don't get me wrong from what i've seen of this movie so far it is anything but a legitimate movie using proper argumentation etc but it's still just that - a movie even if it's a biased pile of dung. I dont think he deserves any blame because guess what, as bad and poorly acted, written, filmed and produced that movie is it is still a movie and it is still freedom of speech being used. I don't know if it can be considered racist/hatecrime etc that would remove it from freedom of speech but still - it's a freaking movie, and an incredibly poorly made one at that. The protests are ridicilous.
Well one aspect of the movie is certainly worthy of protest-the director used actors, lied to them about what the movie would be about, and dubbed over their lines. It's one thing to have freedom of speech, it's another to falsely use other people as a platform to express your beliefs and lie to them about it. That's the strangest part of this whole debacle to me.
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
So you are comparing muslims to rabid dogs eh? Racist.
No but seriously people are entitled to their opinions and also entitled to make terrible movies spouting their ridiculous views. By our cultural standards these rioters look like hypersensitive babies, but by their standards we look like we are trying to start a war with them by provoking them with insults to their god. It would be nice if the rioters understood that these stupid videos are not sanctioned by the US government, or representative of the US in any way, but they just cant understand that the actions of an individual =/= actions of the state.
It's a real shame that such simple cultural misunderstandings lead to violence
On September 14 2012 01:31 Irrelevant Label wrote: It is amazing people are actually willing to blame the video maker for this.
Not only was it apparently a planned assassination that simply used the protest as cover, but even if that was not the case what kind of reason is it to hold that a violent response to media pieces containing religious, social or political commentary is to be accepted?
You throw a rock at a rabid dog and then run away. The dog bites the nearest person. Is it the dog's fault? Yes. Are you at fault? Also yes. It doesn't matter if the rock that was thrown was a golden nugget. If he didn't poke the hornet nest with so little care and consideration, there wouldn't be a riot. Do'nt forget he knew this would provoke a violent response from muslims. No riot, no cover for assassination even if there was one. Meanwhile this guy goes into hiding and claims no responsibility. You tell me why this talentless hack do not deserve some blame?
So you are comparing muslims to rabid dogs eh? Racist.
No but seriously people are entitled to their opinions and also entitled to make terrible movies spouting their ridiculous views. By our cultural standards these rioters look like hypersensitive babies, but by their standards we look like we are trying to start a war with them by provoking them with insults to their god. It would be nice if the rioters understood that these stupid videos are not sanctioned by the US government, or representative of the US in any way, but they just cant understand that the actions of an individual =/= actions of the state.
It's a real shame that such simple cultural misunderstandings lead to violence
I've read that alot of protesters never even saw the movie. ALot of them got riled up by some religious groups that told them about it and that is was an actual real movie that was shown and publicized in the U.S with goverment help.
The fact that its just about the worst movie ever produced ( even THOUGH appearently someone paid 5 millions dollars for this crap as a sponsor ( man he got scammed bigtime ^^ ) ) and basically nobody knows this movie existed besides some nutjobs was not mentioned to them.
On September 12 2012 20:19 ELA wrote: And on september fucking 11th as well... Im not american, but im fuming right now... Did you guys see the pictures of your half naked ambassador being dragged around by a mob??
The original source for the photos says that the people in the picture were trying to help the Ambassador after the attack. That wasn't a mob dragging him around -_-
Seriously in Arab countries do they make movies that attack other religions ? If yes they don't have right to whine about other countries making movies bashing their religion. There's no justification for the killings.
Muslims chose to be insulted by stupid film. Then Muslims respond this percieved insult from someone by murdering someone else. This is nothing strange.
I hope if any more embassies are attacked that there is no risk to any diplomatic workers there, either because they've already been evacuated or there is a secure bunker they can hide in. If there is a legitimate threat to the lives of diplomatic workers, I hope the guards don't hesitate to shoot to kill. Attacking embassies is never okay.
On September 14 2012 03:51 ranshaked wrote: Time to take all Americans out of the middle east, cut trade with them, stop funding them, and bring our troops home!
You can't reason with radical Islamists. It's a pity that the innocents are stuck in the middle.
Have fun without any oil from the middle east. Your own resources are not nearly suffiecient enough to withstand the demand even if you started drilling everywhere possible. Gas prices would explode in the US and not just those. Hell with the oil companies/republicans basically blocking/ignoring renewable enegy development you'll even get problems with your energy management.
On September 14 2012 03:51 ranshaked wrote: Time to take all Americans out of the middle east, cut trade with them, stop funding them, and bring our troops home!
You can't reason with radical Islamists. It's a pity that the innocents are stuck in the middle.
Have fun without any oil from the middle east. Your own resources are not nearly suffiecient enough to withstand the demand even if you started drilling everywhere possible. Gas prices would explode in the US and not just those. Hell with the oil companies/republicans basically blocking/ignoring renewable enegy development you'll even get problems with your energy management.
the US gets around 15% of it's oil from the middle East, almost all of it from Saudi Arabia.
On September 14 2012 03:39 kamikami wrote: Seriously in Arab countries do they make movies that attack other religions ? If yes they don't have right to whine about other countries making movies bashing their religion. There's no justification for the killings.
I don't think they have any justification whether or not they make videos. It's a fucking video, I don't care what it says, that is never a justification for attacking people, for violence, for killing a man.
As for the guy who make the video - well, you finally achieved what you wanted. You wanted to incite hatred, violence, anger, you wanted your name in the press. Don't give me shit about this being freedom of speech - you make a video that attacks Islam you know that there will be repercussions, justified or not. This death is entirely on your head, as much as it is on those who attacked the embassy.
This is why Europe has rules against inciting hatred and attacking religions. Frankly free speech is used to protect bigots in this country, who can then hide from the fallout of their hateful actions. RIP Mr Stevens, my thoughts with your family.
On September 14 2012 03:51 ranshaked wrote: Time to take all Americans out of the middle east, cut trade with them, stop funding them, and bring our troops home!
You can't reason with radical Islamists. It's a pity that the innocents are stuck in the middle.
Have fun without any oil from the middle east. Your own resources are not nearly suffiecient enough to withstand the demand even if you started drilling everywhere possible. Gas prices would explode in the US and not just those. Hell with the oil companies/republicans basically blocking/ignoring renewable enegy development you'll even get problems with your energy management.
the US gets around 15% of it's oil from the middle East, almost all of it from Saudi Arabia.
Thats still a substantial amount that would not be so easy to replace without major increases in gas/oil prices.
Situations like this always remind me of Super Best Friends episode of South Park. Pre-9/11 insults to Muhammad were not a big deal. Sure it wasn't as demeaning, but still.. No large backlash, no protests around the world. And that is fucking South Park. This is a youtube video no one knew existed until this became news.
People also need to relax about the protesters actions. The incident in Libya seems to be more of a preplanned military style assault that happened to gain easier cover under a protest. Besides that specific action, the others seem tame. I have seen worse fall out after soccer games, and with more casualties. Yet I don't hear people talking about how soccer fans are inherently violent, and should start watching a new sport. People get mad, vent their frustrations and move on with their lives.
Some people will use it for their own devices. Others will simply let that anger burn out.
Pro-American supporters have taken to the streets in Libya today to distance themselves from the rocket attack which killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens.
The diplomat, who has campaigned for peace in the Middle East, was killed by militants in the city of Benghazi on Tuesday.
Youngsters were among those who waved placards which stated 'this does not represent us' to express their dismay at the attacks.
One photograph shows a child holding a banner, which although containing some spelling mistakes had a clear message: 'Sorry people of America this is not the behaviour of our Islam and prophet,' it read.
Scribbled on another sign was the simple phrase 'Benghazi is against terrorism' while a third professed affection for the 52-year-old exclaiming: 'Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.'
A placard written in Arabic sent out a message to those attempting to exert their power on the war-torn country.
It said: 'No to al Qaeda, no to violence, this is a youth revolution.'
Another read: 'No No No to Al Qaeda.'
The rally came the day after Mr Stevens became the first U.S. ambassador to be killed by terrorism in 33 years.
Stevens was struck down in a rocket attack by forces unleashed after Muammar Gaddafi's power crumbled - an uprising the ambassador had strongly supported.
Just like not all Americans are like the people who made the weird anti-Islam movie that is sparking protests in Muslim nations, not all people in Libya are like the ones who killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens. Some of the people of Benghazi, where Stevens was killed, held a demonstration against terrorism and to show sympathy for the U.S. Libya Alhurra TV, an Internet TV channel founded at the start of the Arab Spring in 2011, posted Facebook photos of a rally there showing support for America and sympathy for Stevens. Here are some of those pictures:
Update: With the help from The Atlantic's multilingual Heather Horn and some Facebook commenters, we have a few translations of the Arabic signs.
Just an update that they found the guy who made this film. Surprise, surprise, he has a criminal past and he's a fundamentalist Christian with an explicit anti-Islam stance. He even went to the guy who burned the Koran a few years ago to help promote the film.
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiution is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
they get their faith from the same book, the same way the Westboro Baptist Church and Mother Teresa get their faith from the same book. being from the same religion does not mean you share all the same views any more than being an atheist means I share views with Stalin.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
I don't want to argue religion. I'm just presenting another side to the story.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
This is pretty much spot on, although every Muslim gains some knowledge from the Qur'an, extremist or not. I can't think for the life of me the arabic word for the "clerks" you're referring to; these people do, in fact, interpret words from an ancient time and try to appropriate them, which in most cases devolves into literal interpretations due to the fact that Islamic extremism is primarily a conservative movement, to a modern context.
Everyone in this thread needs to acknowledge these terrorist acts are caused by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS and not Muslims as a whole. By generalizing them you are no greater than the people who senselessly bash Americans for being fat and uneducated.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
This is pretty much spot on, although every Muslim gains some knowledge from the Qur'an, extremist or not. I can't think for the life of me the arabic word for the "clerks" you're referring to; these people do, in fact, interpret words from an ancient time and try to appropriate them, which in most cases devolves into literal interpretations due to the fact that Islamic extremism is primarily a conservative movement, to a modern context.
Everyone in this thread needs to acknowledge these terrorist acts are caused by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS and not Muslims as a whole. By generalizing them you are no greater than the people who senselessly bash Americans for being fat and uneducated.
The word is Imam, if you want to use the word equal to priest , but i chose not to use it . I'm not sure how many of the radical leaders are actually Imams .
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
This is pretty much spot on, although every Muslim gains some knowledge from the Qur'an, extremist or not. I can't think for the life of me the arabic word for the "clerks" you're referring to; these people do, in fact, interpret words from an ancient time and try to appropriate them, which in most cases devolves into literal interpretations due to the fact that Islamic extremism is primarily a conservative movement, to a modern context.
Everyone in this thread needs to acknowledge these terrorist acts are caused by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS and not Muslims as a whole. By generalizing them you are no greater than the people who senselessly bash Americans for being fat and uneducated.
The word is Imam, if you want to use the word equal to priest , but i chose not to use it . I'm not sure how many of the radical leaders are actually Imams .
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
You don't know any muslim, it's obvious. If I was you, i wouldn't speak about something I don't know. But it seems that I was grown with different values.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
This is pretty much spot on, although every Muslim gains some knowledge from the Qur'an, extremist or not. I can't think for the life of me the arabic word for the "clerks" you're referring to; these people do, in fact, interpret words from an ancient time and try to appropriate them, which in most cases devolves into literal interpretations due to the fact that Islamic extremism is primarily a conservative movement, to a modern context.
Everyone in this thread needs to acknowledge these terrorist acts are caused by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS and not Muslims as a whole. By generalizing them you are no greater than the people who senselessly bash Americans for being fat and uneducated.
The word is Imam, if you want to use the word equal to priest , but i chose not to use it . I'm not sure how many of the radical leaders are actually Imams .
I think they are called 'mullahs'
Well Imam is the leader of a muslim community/mosque. Mullah is just someone that studied the Koran. So both are kinda right.
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
This is pretty much spot on, although every Muslim gains some knowledge from the Qur'an, extremist or not. I can't think for the life of me the arabic word for the "clerks" you're referring to; these people do, in fact, interpret words from an ancient time and try to appropriate them, which in most cases devolves into literal interpretations due to the fact that Islamic extremism is primarily a conservative movement, to a modern context.
Everyone in this thread needs to acknowledge these terrorist acts are caused by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS and not Muslims as a whole. By generalizing them you are no greater than the people who senselessly bash Americans for being fat and uneducated.
Well said. Condemning Islam and classifying it as "not viable in the 21st century" over the actions of a minority of extremists is like condemning Christianity due to the actions of the KKK.
Yeah, I know, the kkk's heyday was like OVER FIFTY YEARS AGO. Religious toleration, including recognizing that one ought not condemn the beliefs of a largely peaceful group due to the actions of fringe extremists, ought to be an enduring concept.
I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
On September 14 2012 03:51 ranshaked wrote: Time to take all Americans out of the middle east, cut trade with them, stop funding them, and bring our troops home!
You can't reason with radical Islamists. It's a pity that the innocents are stuck in the middle.
Have fun without any oil from the middle east. Your own resources are not nearly suffiecient enough to withstand the demand even if you started drilling everywhere possible. Gas prices would explode in the US and not just those. Hell with the oil companies/republicans basically blocking/ignoring renewable enegy development you'll even get problems with your energy management.
the US gets around 15% of it's oil from the middle East, almost all of it from Saudi Arabia.
Thats still a substantial amount that would not be so easy to replace without major increases in gas/oil prices.
I heard the US actually has quite substantial untapped Oil reserves so I doubt any long term increase would occur except if its politically motivated. Sure for a while there might be an increase in price, but we do get the majority of our oil from Canada after all and if we actually set up and started drilling our own resources more we wouldn't need to import any oil at all. No one wants to increase drilling on our home soil however.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act, not to mention the size difference between an embassy and a country).
On September 14 2012 04:48 FlilFlam wrote: This video scares me...
This thread scares me...
This planet scares me...
As an atheist I do however find it darkly amusing that the overboiling pot of religious hatred from all sides is going to fulfill their own prophecies and fuck up the world's people beyond reasonable repair when the very point and stated purpose of a religious instiutions is to "save the world and its people, and generally make it a better, happier, place".
RIP to the victims...
Violence, murder and general harm are abhorrent in all forms outside the narrowest limits of self defense.
The world grows darker...
Friend, I think you should look at my post above. The pictures in my news links may make you smile.
Can you explain to me how those people, and those who fly planes into buildings, and kill innocent people just because they're American and someone in America made a film about their religion, both get their faith from the same exact book? Those same people in the pictures you posted are against free speech. The women are covered up, and they would not like it if you drew a picture of their prophet. They won't kill you (like the "extremists" do) but they still are not in touch with the 21st century and the implied rights that it comes with in a large majority of nations around the world. Islam in its current form is not viable in the 21st century.
edit: I hope this doesn't go against the note at the top of the thread, but I don't see how this isn't a religious discussion when the intent is entirely religious. Please just erase my post if this goes against it.
They don't get their views/faith from the same book. All of the extrememists get their views from radical "clerks" that interpret scripture written over a millenium ago in way that is not appropriate anymore. These are the kind people that radicalize others to widen their own influence. Extremism in general is wrong and produces nutjob foundamentalists.
This is pretty much spot on, although every Muslim gains some knowledge from the Qur'an, extremist or not. I can't think for the life of me the arabic word for the "clerks" you're referring to; these people do, in fact, interpret words from an ancient time and try to appropriate them, which in most cases devolves into literal interpretations due to the fact that Islamic extremism is primarily a conservative movement, to a modern context.
Everyone in this thread needs to acknowledge these terrorist acts are caused by ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS and not Muslims as a whole. By generalizing them you are no greater than the people who senselessly bash Americans for being fat and uneducated.
Well said. Condemning Islam and classifying it as "not viable in the 21st century" over the actions of a minority of extremists is like condemning Christianity due to the actions of the KKK.
It's not extremist to be against freedom of speech and to cover the women. You guys take so much shit out of context it's disgusting.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act, not to mention the size difference between an embassy and a country).
We don't need armed troops all over because we are not a bunch of loonies that go around and shot ambassadors and bomb embassies.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act).
What can a governement do with 1 year of power after a dictatorship, no more industrial infrastures, no more administration, no more police and many war guns out of control? Control the troops? Pick up the bests of the bests in the middle of many unknown guys?
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act, not to mention the size difference between an embassy and a country).
We don't need armed troops all over because we are not a bunch of loonies that go around and shot ambassadors and bomb embassies.
Look at the context...they were Libyan troops, not US. This is why I am complaining, because now we have even more troops in the country, at our tripolli embassy, so that this doesn't happen again. And they will leikly be there a very long time, along with the naval destroyers.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act).
What can a governement do with 1 year of power after a dictatorship, no more industrial infrastures, no more administration, no more police and many war guns out of control? Control the troops? Pick up the bests of the bests in the middle of many unknown guys?
They do what they can, and they can't do much.
What? I said that they had 40 troops there to help protect our ambassador...but they didn't do that.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act, not to mention the size difference between an embassy and a country).
We don't need armed troops all over because we are not a bunch of loonies that go around and shot ambassadors and bomb embassies.
You have the power to change things btw. It's illegal. But it's possible. It's the same for Lybia, except they don't have the administration and the money to do better than any other country in the world, the richer one included.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act).
What can a governement do with 1 year of power after a dictatorship, no more industrial infrastures, no more administration, no more police and many war guns out of control? Control the troops? Pick up the bests of the bests in the middle of many unknown guys?
They do what they can, and they can't do much.
What? I said that they had 40 troops there to help protect our ambassador...but they didn't do that.
And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
K 40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act).
What can a governement do with 1 year of power after a dictatorship, no more industrial infrastures, no more administration, no more police and many war guns out of control? Control the troops? Pick up the bests of the bests in the middle of many unknown guys?
They do what they can, and they can't do much.
What? I said that they had 40 troops there to help protect our ambassador...but they didn't do that.
And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
Self quotes are cool, but..you know...
More like they gave the victims to the terrorists instead of trying to do their jobs, and those shitbags will NEVER be punished for it.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
It's the same indeed. I've no problem to say that European nations, France included, aint able to protect their citizen even they are rich enough to do so, nor control their own troops.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
The higher incarceration rate is pretty much entirely because of the ridiculous war on drugs.
The higher homicide rate does not come from mass shooting sprees like many people outside the US seem to think, those are quite rare and happen in other countries about as often when you take population into account. It almost exclusively comes from street gang on street gang violence.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
K 40+ troops were stationed there and they walked away...is that not the gov'ts fault? for not doing their job (helping protect our ambassador) which three of our troops did die for....and yes, when we are on guard with naval ships nearby they can most certainly ensure protection at our tripolli embassy...we don't have armed troops all over in the US (on guard and ready to act).
What can a governement do with 1 year of power after a dictatorship, no more industrial infrastures, no more administration, no more police and many war guns out of control? Control the troops? Pick up the bests of the bests in the middle of many unknown guys?
They do what they can, and they can't do much.
What? I said that they had 40 troops there to help protect our ambassador...but they didn't do that.
And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
Self quotes are cool, but..you know...
More like they gave the victims to the terrorists instead of trying to do their jobs, and those shitbags will NEVER be punished for it.
The government said that they will purchase the killer. Let see. I'm not optimistic that the killers will be judged and punished, but "They do what they can, and they can't do much.".
I'm sorry to repeat, but you must take the contexte into consideration.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
I completely agree with this sentiment, although where did it say in the articles that their defense leaders stated it was our fault for allowing the video to be released?
Anyway I'm not convinced by Obama's reaction that there will be a strong military response, although they are sending two destroyers into the Mediterannean. To me this is nothing more than a display of force- I mean why would you be sending tomahawk missiles from hundreds of miles away (the accuracy of which are obviously suspect) when you can literally be dropping hellfire missiles from less than five hundred yards away with a fucking badass UAV. I also read they're planning on reallocating some of the other drones from local combat zones to increase their targeting potential and overall badass-edness.
Here's the problem. I agree the Libyan government looks VERY suspect in this scenario, due to both what you've already stated and something I found shocking in one of the articles: The commander of Libya's special operations unit that was on escort for the 8-man American rescue party stated, "It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it,' Sharif said of the safe house."
I mean this is just ridiculous. What kind of halfassed operation are you running when your safehouse is discovered by the Islamic extremists you're aiming to prevent? And somewhere else in the article it stated the Libyan armed forces didn't react properly because they could "sympathize" with the religious intolerance. I think it also goes without saying that the fact this occurred on 9/11 raises some suspicions by itself.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
Honestly take this nationalist shit somewhere where someone actually gives a damn. I hear there's a Quebec secession thread with your name all over it.
And no, it's not silly. 2 of our diplomats died, and at least 2 additional Americans died in the ensuing rescue effort.
And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
Self quotes are cool, but..you know...
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tough Guy. Pleasure to meet you, sir.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
The higher incarceration rate is pretty much entirely because of the ridiculous war on drugs.
The higher homicide rate does not come from mass shooting sprees like many people outside the US seem to think, those are quite rare and happen in other countries about as often when you take population into account. It almost exclusively comes from street gang on street gang violence.
It's not a discution about USA's politics...it was just an exemple to show that the goverment in Lybia can't be enough powerfull, and that it's normal.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
I completely agree with this sentiment, although where did it say in the articles that their defense leaders stated it was our fault for allowing the video to be released?
Anyway I'm not convinced by Obama's reaction that there will be a strong military response, although they are sending two destroyers into the Mediterannean. To me this is nothing more than a display of force- I mean why would you be sending tomahawk missiles from hundreds of miles away (the accuracy of which are obviously suspect) when you can literally be dropping hellfire missiles from less than five hundred yards away with a fucking badass UAV. I also read they're planning on reallocating some of the other drones from local combat zones to increase their targeting potential and overall badass-edness.
Here's the problem. I agree the Libyan government looks VERY suspect in this scenario, due to both what you've already stated and something I found shocking in one of the articles: The commander of Libya's special operations unit that was on escort for the 8-man American rescue party stated, "It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it,' Sharif said of the safe house."
I mean this is just ridiculous. What kind of halfassed operation are you running when your safehouse is discovered by the Islamic extremists you're aiming to prevent? And somewhere else in the article it stated the Libyan armed forces didn't react properly because they could "sympathize" with the religious intolerance. I think it also goes without saying that the fact this occurred on 9/11 raises some suspicions by itself.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
Honestly take this nationalist shit somewhere where someone actually gives a damn. I hear there's a Quebec secession thread with your name all over it.
And no, it's not silly. 2 of our diplomats died, and at least 2 additional Americans died in the ensuing rescue effort.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
I completely agree with this sentiment, although where did it say in the articles that their defense leaders stated it was our fault for allowing the video to be released?
Anyway I'm not convinced by Obama's reaction that there will be a strong military response, although they are sending two destroyers into the Mediterannean. To me this is nothing more than a display of force- I mean why would you be sending tomahawk missiles from hundreds of miles away (the accuracy of which are obviously suspect) when you can literally be dropping hellfire missiles from less than five hundred yards away with a fucking badass UAV. I also read they're planning on reallocating some of the other drones from local combat zones to increase their targeting potential and overall badass-edness.
Here's the problem. I agree the Libyan government looks VERY suspect in this scenario, due to both what you've already stated and something I found shocking in one of the articles: The commander of Libya's special operations unit that was on escort for the 8-man American rescue party stated, "It was supposed to be a secret place and we were surprised the armed groups knew about it,' Sharif said of the safe house."
I mean this is just ridiculous. What kind of halfassed operation are you running when your safehouse is discovered by the Islamic extremists you're aiming to prevent? And somewhere else in the article it stated the Libyan armed forces didn't react properly because they could "sympathize" with the religious intolerance. I think it also goes without saying that the fact this occurred on 9/11 raises some suspicions by itself.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
Honestly take this nationalist shit somewhere where someone actually gives a damn. I hear there's a Quebec secession thread with your name all over it.
And no, it's not silly. 2 of our diplomats died, and at least 2 additional Americans died in the ensuing rescue effort.
And I said about Government in Lybia : "They do what they can, and they can't do much."
Self quotes are cool, but..you know...
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tough Guy. Pleasure to meet you, sir.
Here is where senior officer, Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the pro-government local defense force, the Libya's Shield Brigade said that we are to blame for this event.
Tellingly, he and another senior officer, Wissam Buhmeid, the commander of the pro-government local defense force, the Libya's Shield Brigade, stressed that the Libyan guards on the consulate - estimated by Bargathi at up to 40 or more - may have felt little will to defend the compound from what they, and many other Libyans, judged to be justified religious indignation.
"I first of all place the blame on the United States itself for allowing such a movie to be produced. This was the product of the anger of Muslims," Buhmeid said, noting also that the guards had only light weapons in the face of rockets. Source
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
Read the rest of his post. That was what I was addressing.
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
And if we had intervened beyond that point you'd be bitching about imperialism.
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
Time to start giving some of your own advice instead of just asking loaded questions.
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
What a bad post. Are you trying to say that they aren't building a democratic state? Let us be clear - nobody said it was going to be easy, or without problems. But are Libyans as a people better off than they were with Gaddafi in power? Undoubtedly. Remember, this is the dictator who said the following to his army: "From tomorrow you will only find our people. You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi. A small problem that has become an international issue. And they are voting on it tonight ... because they are determined. As I have said, we are determined. We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road, the Libyan people all of them together will be crawling out."
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable.
Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero,
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable.
Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero,
What an awful post. The United States helped free Libyans from Qaddafi, yet you're painting it as an invasion/theft. The protests are clearly about the movie as they are Arab-wide and protesters are blatantly referencing the movie, though it appears militants hijacked the Libyan one. Please go back to your freshman polisci class where shouting "The United States, is like, worse than Nazi Germany, like seriously" is considered hip and credible.
The reality is that the United States will never get any lasting goodwill from anyone. If the United States doesn't support the uprising, they're standing by because they don't care about brown people. If they put American lives in danger, they're stealing the country. Okay. This is why I support an American-first foreign policy that focuses on improving American power and standing worldwide - you're going to get publicly reamed no matter what, so why not get something out of it too?
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
You mean trying to do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tried to stabilize those countries, got reamed by the rest of the world for that too.
Why doesn't Germany step up and offer to enforce UN sanctions if they can do better?
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable.
Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero,
What an awful post. The United States helped free Libyans from Qaddafi, yet you're painting it as an invasion/theft. The protests are clearly about the movie as they are Arab-wide and protesters are blatantly referencing the movie, though it appears militants hijacked the Libyan one. Please go back to your freshman polisci class where shouting "The United States, is like, worse than Nazi Germany, like seriously" is considered hip and credible.
The reality is that the United States will never get any lasting goodwill from anyone. If the United States doesn't support the uprising, they're standing by because they don't care about brown people. If they put American lives in danger, they're stealing the country. Okay. This is why I support an American-first foreign policy that focuses on improving American power and standing worldwide - you're going to get publicly reamed no matter what, so why not get something out of it too?
I want to give you an answer to the question at the end of your post. Why not do something that's bigger than ourselves? I mean that's the ultimate goal, but it seems petty to say that you're only going to act a certain way because you will get flak either way. That's like saying I would act a certain way just so people would think of me as a good person. I don't think that makes you a good person.
More on topic: I think it's interesting that almost all of us can get along on individual levels, but the bigger the group gets, the bigger the divide. When you can point at a group instead of an individual, it's a lot easier to do all the "bad things". When you're in a room with other beings like yourself (humans) it's very hard to do bad things to them as you can see the effects immediately and directly and in their full light.
I wish everyone would just stop being so petty. Be kind. We're all in this together, lets act like we're on the same team at least..
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
please dont listen to the mainstream media's account of anything. The idea that people would riot over some movie they probably havent even seen is idiotic, i hope not everyone is this gullable.
Mike Rivera put it well: "The people of Libya are angry because the US invaded their nation, wrecked the place, shut down their state bank and value-based currency, imposed a puppet regime on them and a private central bank to trap them permanently in debt the same way the Federal Reserve has done to the US itself. Blaming the violence on that silly movie is just a doge to make it look like all those people in the nations invaded by the US do not have a legitimate cause for anger at the invasion and theft of their countries." - Mike Rivero,
What an awful post. The United States helped free Libyans from Qaddafi, yet you're painting it as an invasion/theft. The protests are clearly about the movie as they are Arab-wide and protesters are blatantly referencing the movie, though it appears militants hijacked the Libyan one. Please go back to your freshman polisci class where shouting "The United States, is like, worse than Nazi Germany, like seriously" is considered hip and credible.
The reality is that the United States will never get any lasting goodwill from anyone. If the United States doesn't support the uprising, they're standing by because they don't care about brown people. If they put American lives in danger, they're stealing the country. Okay. This is why I support an American-first foreign policy that focuses on improving American power and standing worldwide - you're going to get publicly reamed no matter what, so why not get something out of it too?
I want to give you an answer to the question at the end of your post. Why not do something that's bigger than ourselves? I mean that's the ultimate goal, but it seems petty to say that you're only going to act a certain way because you will get flak either way. That's like saying I would act a certain way just so people would think of me as a good person. I don't think that makes you a good person.
More on topic: I think it's interesting that almost all of us can get along on individual levels, but the bigger the group gets, the bigger the divide. When you can point at a group instead of an individual, it's a lot easier to do all the "bad things". When you're in a room with other beings like yourself (humans) it's very hard to do bad things to them as you can see the effects immediately and directly and in their full light.
I wish everyone would just stop being so petty. Be kind. We're all in this together, lets act like we're on the same team at least..
I know you were intentionally limiting the scope of your answer, but to me it still feels like a dodge. He's asking what I feel is a legitimate question: what CAN the us do to satisfy world opinion when a state is massacring its population and we are in a good position to do something about it. He was asking a specific question, your answer was a vague admonition to be nicer.
And no, I do not think "stay out of their business" is the right answer when we have the option of putting a stop to a massacre against civilians of that scale.
Edit: I understand the skepticism though, given our recent history of aggression. If say, china or Russia was militarily intervening somewhere everyone would pose difficult questions to them, for similar reasons.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
who said that?
TAA on youtube, not generally a particularly good source but once in a while he says something smart like that.
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
What a bad post. Are you trying to say that they aren't building a democratic state? Let us be clear - nobody said it was going to be easy, or without problems. But are Libyans as a people better off than they were with Gaddafi in power? Undoubtedly. Remember, this is the dictator who said the following to his army: "From tomorrow you will only find our people. You all go out and cleanse the city of Benghazi. A small problem that has become an international issue. And they are voting on it tonight ... because they are determined. As I have said, we are determined. We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road, the Libyan people all of them together will be crawling out."
That quote has broken English. It's a passage translated from Al Jazeera. I can't say much about it.
Let's look at democratization.
Failed state index Iraq 2009: #9
They ranked even higher when the American troops were still stationed. Iraq has a GDP per capita of 4k $ per year. You can barely survive with that much. What do you expect these people to do within a formally democratic state? How are they going to compete and what will prevent this 'democracy' from breaking down? Nothing.
' A new dawn awaits the Libyan people now that Col Gaddafi can no longer undermine their efforts to build a democratic state. '
UK and USA, where is the new dawn?
Must be fun to hunt some dictators, to let them be slaughtered by the mob afterwards. When the fun is over, you just pray for rule of law and democracy? But then, magically, aaawwh, it didn't happen. What's your plan now?
You mean trying to do what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Tried to stabilize those countries, got reamed by the rest of the world for that too.
Why doesn't Germany step up and offer to enforce UN sanctions if they can do better?
Afghanistan is #7. What the heck are you doing there? You stabilize nothing. Its government is corrupt, the country is even poorer than Iraq. About 500 to 600$ GDP per capita. Every officer there will crave for anything. The country is a wasteland.
The facts are: you see a threat. You go in and conquer a poor wasteland, causing lots of casualties. Then you do ... talking like on an Obama ad clip.
After WW2 you applied the Marshall-Plan. I'm not saying it worked and it's still disputed what effect it had. But there was that general concept to improve the conquered country's industry and commerce, boost reconstruction.
You don't have any concept currently and the number of wars you have waged might soon rise again.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
On September 14 2012 12:34 DannyJ wrote: Do you think Afghanistan was a wonderful place before the US went in? It was barely even a country...
Just in case you're interested, the Afghan population was actually ~90% in favor of intervention just before the 2001 occupation. The execution of the intervention, unfortunately, was terrible -- not to mention the fact that what little progress that had been made was immediately trashed upon the 2003 US misadventure into Iraq.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
If I continuously insult your mother in front of you, you will react however you will react largely because perhaps you can't avoid it. But if I said something about your mother on the Internet and you went out and punched someone else, then you're an imbecile. And if you went after me, then I'd consider you dumb as well, because nothing keeps you from just not looking at it and not thinking about it. More importantly, why would you right away resort to physical violence?
And yes Muslims should be allowed to protest, but what are they going to protest against? The specific individuals who have the rights to make those videos or the government which allows them? Either way, it's a bit ridiculous.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
There are plenty of videos on youtube that aim to provoke atheists and Christians. They generate hateful comments, not bodies. Big deal. Some people like to tell me that I'm going to hell and I deserve it. If they say it on youtube, I'll disregard it.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
If I continuously insult your mother in front of you, you will react however you will react largely because perhaps you can't avoid it. But if I said something about your mother on the Internet and you went out and punched someone else, then you're an imbecile. And if you went after me, then I'd consider you dumb as well, because nothing keeps you from just not looking at it and not thinking about it. More importantly, why would you right away resort to physical violence?
And yes Muslims should be allowed to protest, but what are they going to protest against? The specific individuals who have the rights to make those videos or the government which allows them? Either way, it's a bit ridiculous.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
There are plenty of videos on youtube that aim to provoke atheists and Christians. They generate hateful comments, not bodies. Big deal. Some people like to tell me that I'm going to hell and I deserve it. If they say it on youtube, I'll disregard it.
Anyway, going to bed. Cheers.
The Muslims are protesting against the movie. How hard is it to understand that? They're not out there fuming at every single American. Your example doesn't really have any place in this conversation as it's taken way out of context (first of all, their frustration is directed at the right target (the movie), and second of all, they did not murder those people because of the video).
And it does not matter if atheists or Christians get angry or not at the youtube videos they see. You base the situation on whether or not these Muslims are within their own right to be angry or not, which, as I've said, they definitely are. Just like if some Germans were to make a video that glorified Nazis and the Holocaust, Jews would be well within their right to express their outrage as well, or if some idiot Japanese made a video glorifying the Rape of Nanking, you can bet the Chinese would be furious.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
Clear something up for me, do you believe that the protestors are murdering people? Because they're not. Militants planning a terrorist attack on an embassy used the video as a trigger and excuse. They're just protesting at U.S. embassies because various media outlets in their countries are hyping this more or less as a U.S.-sanctioned video.
Just like how tea partiers probably would have protested at the Iranian embassy after they "stole" our drone if they knew where the embassy was or there was one in every state.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
Read the rest of his post. That was what I was addressing.
The protesters also had guns and home-made bombs. Militants weren't the only ones setting the place on fire and shooting ppl...read my post that he was addressing. Ie. look at the eye witness reports in the source articles from Reuters.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
Read the rest of his post. That was what I was addressing.
The protesters also had guns and home-made bombs. Militants weren't the only ones setting the place on fire and shooting ppl...read my post that he was addressing.
On September 14 2012 07:05 Prplppleatr wrote: I honestly am still very angry at the Libyan Govt. Their 40+ troops stationed at the embassy simply walked away and allowed this, likely, planned attack to happen. And their defense leaders stated that it was our fault for allowing that video to be released. This gives me 0 faith in their forces, which means we will have to have troops stationed there permanently until we feel it is safe (likely not for a very long time) because of the importance of the country (oil).
Sources on page 19 in my first post.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
Read the rest of his post. That was what I was addressing.
The protesters also had guns and home-made bombs. Militants weren't the only ones setting the place on fire and shooting ppl...read my post that he was addressing.
Hum...USA has the biggest army in the world, they are also the richer in the world, and by far. But there's 13 000 murder per year in USA.
If USA can't ensure the protection of their own citizens, how a poor country like Lybia, barely coming from a violent civil war; is supposed to do better?
I'm not here to blame USA, the US's are fine, but come on...blaming a governement in this kind of context...sorry, I don't want to offend you, but it's silly.
It's also is 50x bigger than the average European nation but that doesn't matter right?
We still have more homicides and prisoners per capita.
Who cares? It is irrelevant to the OP. Let's not get on a tangent. Protecting an embassy is not comparable to preventing civilians from murdering each other. No one has asked Libya to reach beyond their means. They had men there, and those men were allegedly "indignant" that a movie was made. That is why the OP as well as I am angry. The Libyan government is angry that America "allowed" an anti-Muslim movie to be made. A low budget film is the justification for violence on innocents from terrorists, inaction from supposed allies, and then blame for the entire event is placed on America?
This has been addressed multiple times in this thread. The militants who murdered the people at the consulate were not a part of the protest - they manipulated it. Be angry that there are militants out there who would attack a U.S. consulate, do not be angry at the protesters for being angry. If we're allowed to strut our freedom of speech around, so are the protestors. The militants are a whole different story.
? What...that guy was telling the people who were discussing incarceration in the US that it was not relevant, which it isn't.
Read the rest of his post. That was what I was addressing.
The protesters also had guns and home-made bombs. Militants weren't the only ones setting the place on fire and shooting ppl...read my post that he was addressing.
Look at my post on page 19...I already sourced similar articles and the eye witness accounts, which included all of that information.
I read your sources. Source 1 is speculation as nothing was clear when the article was released (the article I linked you was just released and has clearer information). Says it here in Source 1:
Much remains unknown, notably the extent to which armed militants may have prepared in advance for an attack as opposed to merely profiting from the opportunity of an angry crowd spinning out of control in a country where guns are everywhere.
Source 2 is more or less the same, lots of speculation, and they even group the protestors and attackers into one category.
"The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one," he said.
There is a possibility that actual protestors just joined in the assault, but there is no real confirmation of that (how do you even separate regular protestors from the people who planned the attack?). From what we currently know, everything was all a part of the plan.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
i knew you would avoid the correction to your statement that i amde, your point does not stand, the reality is that the islamic world is against freedom of speech and expression and that should not and will not be tolerated by 1st world countries
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
i knew you would avoid the correction to your statement that i amde, your point does not stand, the reality is that the islamic world is against freedom of speech and expression and that should not and will not be tolerated by 1st world countries
half of the world is against freedom of speech and expression. From hardcore North Korea, to much more limited but still pretty powerful laws in democracies like Germany. I dont know what you want the first world to do? Bomb all of them? Spam them with even more stuff to set them off? We are all on different cultural schedules. Quite frankly the only thing that the first world could do constructive would be to minimize dependence on countries who hate freedom and then offering the liberal minded citizens of those countries a path to citizenship over here.
Has anyone seen the film? He should be shot for making awful art...even Uwe Boll has better films.
And if this guy cries freedom of speech, I will be incredibly upset. If freedom of speech turns from whether or not we should have the right to speak out against the government for issues such as war, taxes, and politics to whether we should have the right to make god awful films that is meant to be hateful, then I am very sad for our most rights.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
You're way off base here. This is me walking into Compton, dropping the n word on a bunch of crips, and then them driving out to Montana and killing a bunch of people I've never even heard of in response. It makes no sense of any sort.
And even then, just because the movie is provocative doesn't excuse the people who get violent in response. Take those nutters from Westboro baptist for instance. They're about as offensive as it gets, but if the father of a dead soldier stabbed a few of them to death at one of their funeral demonstrations, he would be sent to prison and rightly so, even considering the circumstances.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
i knew you would avoid the correction to your statement that i amde, your point does not stand, the reality is that the islamic world is against freedom of speech and expression and that should not and will not be tolerated by 1st world countries
What are you even going on about? The Islamic world is not telling Western countries to get rid of their freedom of speech, they are condemning an atrocious movie. What part of this do you not understand? Talk about exaggerating. Are you sure you know what reality is?
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
You're way off base here. This is me walking into Compton, dropping the n word on a bunch of crips, and then them driving out to Montana and killing a bunch of people I've never even heard of in response. It no sense of any sort.
And even then, just because the movie is provocative doesn't excuse the people who get violent in response. Take those nutters from Westboro baptist for instance. They're about as offensive as it gets, but if the father of a dead soldier stabbed a few of them to death at one of their funeral demonstrations, he would be sent to prison and rightly so, even considering the circumstances.
Can everyone who posts in this thread take a moment to read the freaking link that's been posted here describing how the movie was not why people were murdered? If you can't even get the facts straight, why are you even refuting me?
Let me just clarify: the examples I gave were addressing the people who thought people should just suck it up whenever they're insulted because freedom of speech is the law of the land.
In neither of the examples did I say murder was justifiable. I even said it in my post that it was not. But people have a right to be angry, and provocation is even recognized by our judicial system as a reason to mitigate sentences, so you should rethink the whole 'it's okay to insult people and get away with it' stance.
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
If I continuously insult your mother in front of you, you will react however you will react largely because perhaps you can't avoid it. But if I said something about your mother on the Internet and you went out and punched someone else, then you're an imbecile. And if you went after me, then I'd consider you dumb as well, because nothing keeps you from just not looking at it and not thinking about it. More importantly, why would you right away resort to physical violence?
And yes Muslims should be allowed to protest, but what are they going to protest against? The specific individuals who have the rights to make those videos or the government which allows them? Either way, it's a bit ridiculous.
On September 14 2012 13:30 Souma wrote:
On September 14 2012 13:24 Silidons wrote:
On September 14 2012 13:18 Souma wrote:
On September 14 2012 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
On September 14 2012 12:45 Orek wrote:
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
There are plenty of videos on youtube that aim to provoke atheists and Christians. They generate hateful comments, not bodies. Big deal. Some people like to tell me that I'm going to hell and I deserve it. If they say it on youtube, I'll disregard it.
Anyway, going to bed. Cheers.
The Muslims are protesting against the movie. How hard is it to understand that? They're not out there fuming at every single American. Your example doesn't really have any place in this conversation as it's taken way out of context (first of all, their frustration is directed at the right target (the movie), and second of all, they did not murder those people because of the video).
And it does not matter if atheists or Christians get angry or not at the youtube videos they see. You base the situation on whether or not these Muslims are within their own right to be angry or not, which, as I've said, they definitely are. Just like if some Germans were to make a video that glorified Nazis and the Holocaust, Jews would be well within their right to express their outrage as well, or if some idiot Japanese made a video glorifying the Rape of Nanking, you can bet the Chinese would be furious.
Yes, but murdering an ambassador is not just a protest. Even in the peak of the cold war, embassies were untouchable. This is the single most important rule of international diplomacy. The US embassy is for all purposes US soil. This is an attack on US grounds against the US, and the US are well within their rights to DECLARE WAR over this. This is not being "angry", this is an international scandal, showcasing that the extremists are not only murderers that don't give a shit about laws, but that they are willing to ignore the good of their own country's international standing to make a point.
There are plenty of videos glorifying the holocaust and the Nazis. There were cases in Europe where people were cracking up laughing during showings of Schindler's List. There were no Jewish protests, let alone murders. There are cases of burnt churches, mocking of Jesus on TV and Film, and I'm not even going to start about the amount of materials poking fun of Christianity (/r/atheism anyone?)... yet no lynch mobs storming embassies happened. During the peak of the cold war, with the media vilifying communism (from the media to pop songs), yet not one case of firing missiles at an embassy.
Draw a line between anger and murder. There is a big fucking difference.
I'm not sure how many times I'll have to repeat this: READ THE LINK, THEY DIDN'T MURDER ANYONE BECAUSE OF THE MOVIE.
Would it be possible to get a Mod Note on the top telling people to read that Associated Press article before people start fuming that Muslims murdered innocents because of a stupid movie?
And I'm gonna say this again too: it doesn't matter how atheists or Jews would respond. What matters is if someone is within their right to be angry. Just because someone is more tough skinned than someone else means absolutely nothing.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
You do realize that the ones who "inflicted harm upon the ambassador", as in "killed him", did so not because of the movie but because they were terrorists who wanted to kill him regardless of the movie? Did you even read Souma's posts? There's a difference between the protesters who are demonstrating because of the movie and the actual terrorist act which had nothing to do with it.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
You do realize that the ones who "inflicted harm upon the ambassador", as in "killed him", did so not because of the movie but because they were terrorists who wanted to kill him regardless of the movie? Did you even read Souma's posts? There's a difference between the protesters who are demonstrating because of the movie and the actual terrorist act which had nothing to do with it.
Yes I am not just talking about Lybia
In Yemen, demonstrators breached a security wall at the U.S. Embassy as several thousand people protested outside. Four protesters died during clashes with security forces outside the embassy, according to Yemeni security officials. Twenty-four security force members were reported injured, as were 11 protesters, according to Yemen's Defense Ministry, security officials and eyewitnesses. -- In Egypt, site of one of the largest, longest-lasting protests, at least 13 civilians and six police officers were injured Thursday, according to Egyptian government officials. Throngs continued to pack the area in front of the Cairo embassy on Friday morning, as a large fire burned and security guarded the area. The instability in Egypt is a primary concern to U.S. President Barack Obama, who warned in an interview with Telemundo that it would be "a real big problem" if Egypt's leaders fail to protect American interests there. -- In Tunisia and Morocco, protesters massed in front of U.S. embassies. -- In Gaza City, Palestinians demonstrated outside U.N. headquarters, and about 200 Palestinians protested the film at the Palestine Legislative Council building. In one instance, Palestinian men burned a U.S. flag. -- In Tel Aviv, Israel, about 50 people demonstrated in front of the U.S. Embassy. -- Iranians protested near the Swiss Embassy in Tehran on Thursday. Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran, since Washington and Tehran do not have diplomatic relations. Up to 500 people chanted "Death to America!" and called for death to the director of the movie. The Islamic Propagation Coordination Council, meanwhile, has issued a statement calling for rallies across Iran on Friday "to protest Zionist-U.S. plots against Muslim and Islamic values," the state-run IRNA news agency reported. -- In Iraq, specifically in the predominantly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City, hundreds of protesters hit the streets to protest the film. They chanted, "America is the enemy of the people," with some burning an American flag. Other followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also protested in the provinces of Najaf and Karbala. So far, the violence has not spread to Afghanistan, where there is a high potential for outrage to erupt into destabilizing chaos. Obama and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, have expressed their commitment to prevent that from happening. The Afghan government has ordered an indefinite block of YouTube to prevent people there from watching the clips and staging violent protests. YouTube has already restricted access to the video.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
You do realize that the ones who "inflicted harm upon the ambassador", as in "killed him", did so not because of the movie but because they were terrorists who wanted to kill him regardless of the movie? Did you even read Souma's posts? There's a difference between the protesters who are demonstrating because of the movie and the actual terrorist act which had nothing to do with it.
In Yemen, demonstrators breached a security wall at the U.S. Embassy as several thousand people protested outside. Four protesters died during clashes with security forces outside the embassy, according to Yemeni security officials. Twenty-four security force members were reported injured, as were 11 protesters, according to Yemen's Defense Ministry, security officials and eyewitnesses. -- In Egypt, site of one of the largest, longest-lasting protests, at least 13 civilians and six police officers were injured Thursday, according to Egyptian government officials. Throngs continued to pack the area in front of the Cairo embassy on Friday morning, as a large fire burned and security guarded the area. The instability in Egypt is a primary concern to U.S. President Barack Obama, who warned in an interview with Telemundo that it would be "a real big problem" if Egypt's leaders fail to protect American interests there. -- In Tunisia and Morocco, protesters massed in front of U.S. embassies. -- In Gaza City, Palestinians demonstrated outside U.N. headquarters, and about 200 Palestinians protested the film at the Palestine Legislative Council building. In one instance, Palestinian men burned a U.S. flag. -- In Tel Aviv, Israel, about 50 people demonstrated in front of the U.S. Embassy. -- Iranians protested near the Swiss Embassy in Tehran on Thursday. Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran, since Washington and Tehran do not have diplomatic relations. Up to 500 people chanted "Death to America!" and called for death to the director of the movie. The Islamic Propagation Coordination Council, meanwhile, has issued a statement calling for rallies across Iran on Friday "to protest Zionist-U.S. plots against Muslim and Islamic values," the state-run IRNA news agency reported. -- In Iraq, specifically in the predominantly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City, hundreds of protesters hit the streets to protest the film. They chanted, "America is the enemy of the people," with some burning an American flag. Other followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also protested in the provinces of Najaf and Karbala. So far, the violence has not spread to Afghanistan, where there is a high potential for outrage to erupt into destabilizing chaos. Obama and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, have expressed their commitment to prevent that from happening. The Afghan government has ordered an indefinite block of YouTube to prevent people there from watching the clips and staging violent protests. YouTube has already restricted access to the video.
Yemen (and to a lesser extent Egypt) are pretty problematic. You can condemn them if you'd like. Just don't be bigoted towards people who aren't involved in the matter, as most people have been. But before people blindly direct their rage, it'd be nice if everyone actually took the time to educate themselves on U.S. - Middle Eastern relations. The anti-American rage that a lot of Muslims harbor stems much further than a movie. We're merely just giving them more reasons to hate us, as if they didn't have enough already.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
You do realize that the ones who "inflicted harm upon the ambassador", as in "killed him", did so not because of the movie but because they were terrorists who wanted to kill him regardless of the movie? Did you even read Souma's posts? There's a difference between the protesters who are demonstrating because of the movie and the actual terrorist act which had nothing to do with it.
Yes I am not just talking about Lybia
In Yemen, demonstrators breached a security wall at the U.S. Embassy as several thousand people protested outside. Four protesters died during clashes with security forces outside the embassy, according to Yemeni security officials. Twenty-four security force members were reported injured, as were 11 protesters, according to Yemen's Defense Ministry, security officials and eyewitnesses. -- In Egypt, site of one of the largest, longest-lasting protests, at least 13 civilians and six police officers were injured Thursday, according to Egyptian government officials. Throngs continued to pack the area in front of the Cairo embassy on Friday morning, as a large fire burned and security guarded the area. The instability in Egypt is a primary concern to U.S. President Barack Obama, who warned in an interview with Telemundo that it would be "a real big problem" if Egypt's leaders fail to protect American interests there. -- In Tunisia and Morocco, protesters massed in front of U.S. embassies. -- In Gaza City, Palestinians demonstrated outside U.N. headquarters, and about 200 Palestinians protested the film at the Palestine Legislative Council building. In one instance, Palestinian men burned a U.S. flag. -- In Tel Aviv, Israel, about 50 people demonstrated in front of the U.S. Embassy. -- Iranians protested near the Swiss Embassy in Tehran on Thursday. Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran, since Washington and Tehran do not have diplomatic relations. Up to 500 people chanted "Death to America!" and called for death to the director of the movie. The Islamic Propagation Coordination Council, meanwhile, has issued a statement calling for rallies across Iran on Friday "to protest Zionist-U.S. plots against Muslim and Islamic values," the state-run IRNA news agency reported. -- In Iraq, specifically in the predominantly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City, hundreds of protesters hit the streets to protest the film. They chanted, "America is the enemy of the people," with some burning an American flag. Other followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also protested in the provinces of Najaf and Karbala. So far, the violence has not spread to Afghanistan, where there is a high potential for outrage to erupt into destabilizing chaos. Obama and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, have expressed their commitment to prevent that from happening. The Afghan government has ordered an indefinite block of YouTube to prevent people there from watching the clips and staging violent protests. YouTube has already restricted access to the video.
Yemen (and to a lesser extent Egypt) are pretty problematic. You can condemn them if you'd like. Just don't be bigoted towards people who aren't involved in the matter, as most people have been. But before people blindly direct their rage, it'd be nice if everyone actually took the time to educate themselves on U.S. - Middle Eastern relations. The anti-American rage that a lot of Muslims harbor stems much further than a movie. We're merely just giving them more reasons to hate us, as if they didn't have enough already.
To the best of my knowledge i know it is against Islam to depict Muhammad in any way. This film crosses that line and I can understand the outrage. The film maker is not Islamic however and does not have to follow the rules of that religion. Like it or not he is within his rights according to the U.S. constitution to release a video such as the one he did. People must accept that.
I have accepted the fact that most middle-eastern countries dislike us. I don't know why, and I do not care to learn why so long as the dispute remains verbal. Even burning flags and chanting "Death to America" does not bother me. When violence gets introduced, I care.
People are calling for the film makers head, and his life is in danger. It's sickening.
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"The murder of an ambassador in Libya and the attacks on US diplomatic missions in other Arab countries is sure to strengthen the skepticism that more than a few Americans feel toward Muslims and the political changes brought by the Arab revolutions. The deeply held American belief that all you have to do is liberate people from serfdom and dictatorship, and then democracy and a market economy will develop more or less on their own, burned to ash in the trial by fire of Iraq. A fact that academics and historically informed diplomats have always known can now be observed throughout the Arab world: Deeply ingrained cultural attitudes do not change simply because one political regime replaces another. In the long process of building a democratic society, it is not possible to simply skip stages."
That quote stresses how I think about a lot of these issues.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
You do realize that the ones who "inflicted harm upon the ambassador", as in "killed him", did so not because of the movie but because they were terrorists who wanted to kill him regardless of the movie? Did you even read Souma's posts? There's a difference between the protesters who are demonstrating because of the movie and the actual terrorist act which had nothing to do with it.
Yes I am not just talking about Lybia
In Yemen, demonstrators breached a security wall at the U.S. Embassy as several thousand people protested outside. Four protesters died during clashes with security forces outside the embassy, according to Yemeni security officials. Twenty-four security force members were reported injured, as were 11 protesters, according to Yemen's Defense Ministry, security officials and eyewitnesses. -- In Egypt, site of one of the largest, longest-lasting protests, at least 13 civilians and six police officers were injured Thursday, according to Egyptian government officials. Throngs continued to pack the area in front of the Cairo embassy on Friday morning, as a large fire burned and security guarded the area. The instability in Egypt is a primary concern to U.S. President Barack Obama, who warned in an interview with Telemundo that it would be "a real big problem" if Egypt's leaders fail to protect American interests there. -- In Tunisia and Morocco, protesters massed in front of U.S. embassies. -- In Gaza City, Palestinians demonstrated outside U.N. headquarters, and about 200 Palestinians protested the film at the Palestine Legislative Council building. In one instance, Palestinian men burned a U.S. flag. -- In Tel Aviv, Israel, about 50 people demonstrated in front of the U.S. Embassy. -- Iranians protested near the Swiss Embassy in Tehran on Thursday. Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran, since Washington and Tehran do not have diplomatic relations. Up to 500 people chanted "Death to America!" and called for death to the director of the movie. The Islamic Propagation Coordination Council, meanwhile, has issued a statement calling for rallies across Iran on Friday "to protest Zionist-U.S. plots against Muslim and Islamic values," the state-run IRNA news agency reported. -- In Iraq, specifically in the predominantly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City, hundreds of protesters hit the streets to protest the film. They chanted, "America is the enemy of the people," with some burning an American flag. Other followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also protested in the provinces of Najaf and Karbala. So far, the violence has not spread to Afghanistan, where there is a high potential for outrage to erupt into destabilizing chaos. Obama and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, have expressed their commitment to prevent that from happening. The Afghan government has ordered an indefinite block of YouTube to prevent people there from watching the clips and staging violent protests. YouTube has already restricted access to the video.
Yemen (and to a lesser extent Egypt) are pretty problematic. You can condemn them if you'd like. Just don't be bigoted towards people who aren't involved in the matter, as most people have been. But before people blindly direct their rage, it'd be nice if everyone actually took the time to educate themselves on U.S. - Middle Eastern relations. The anti-American rage that a lot of Muslims harbor stems much further than a movie. We're merely just giving them more reasons to hate us, as if they didn't have enough already.
To the best of my knowledge i know it is against Islam to depict Muhammad in any way. This film crosses that line and I can understand the outrage. The film maker is not Islamic however and does not have to follow the rules of that religion. Like it or not he is within his rights according to the U.S. constitution to release a video such as the one he did. People must accept that.
It is against Islam to depict Muhammad, but there are many depictions of Muhammad that people do not care about. There's a depiction of him on the U.S. Supreme Court building, and Iran has many depictions of him as well. Most people are outraged that it is offensive, but the ones disturbing the peace are a minority (compared to the overall Muslim population, the amount of protestors is miniscule, and the ones utilizing violence are pale in comparison). Those inciting violence should definitely be condemned.
I have accepted the fact that most middle-eastern countries dislike us. I don't know why, and I do not care to learn why so long as the dispute remains verbal. Even burning flags and chanting "Death to America" does not bother me. When violence gets introduced, I care.
People are calling for the film makers head, and his life is in danger. It's sickening.
Blindly accepting their dislike does no one any good. If you're so averse to violence you have an obligation to know why they hate us. We've perpetrated more violence and killed tons more innocent people in the Middle East since the onset of the Cold War than they ever have, but I won't get into specifics because that would be straying off-topic.
For anyone who cares, I found an enlightening article on why these events occur.
A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
i thought its just a ironic/sarcastic/whatever film by some internet people.
given the fact that its from a israeli jew. i can quite understand their rage (even though its not in the right form by using violence). it much more turns into a insult. and dont tell me the filmmaker didnt have hidden thoughts when he made that movie.
bla bla free speech and shit. its just insulting given the fact that there is a serious conflict between both parties.
On September 15 2012 00:21 bailando wrote: i thought its just a ironic/sarcastic/whatever film by some internet people.
given the fact that its from a israeli jew. i can quite understand their rage (even though its not in the right form by using violence). it much more turns into a insult. and dont tell me the filmmaker didnt have hidden thoughts when he made that movie.
bla bla free speech and shit. its just insulting given the fact that there is a serious conflict between both parties.
Of course this movie is a peace of shit full of hate and disrespect, but if I insult you, even if you're hardly offended, you won't cross the border and kill the Starsbourg's major nor burning the french flag roaring "Töten wir alle französish !!".
You'll yell, riot, prosecute me, threaten me at the most.
The reaction of this minority is disproportionate and violent against innocent people who didn't insult them.
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
And when you actually research this stuff more deeply, it only gets more and more depressing.
I read most of the article, but I think there are a few important points that the author isn't really mentioning.
After researching US activities in the middle-east there are certainly many scholars that would say the protesters have reasons to be angry, notably the support the US has had in the past for various regimes. I would think one of the first questions would be, how many people in these middle-eastern countries are even aware of US backing of some of these regimes? Is there polling data to support this claim? And to the extent that they are aware, how much anti-American sentiment is actually there as a result? That is, is it enough that they would attack embassies (not talking about Libya) as a result of viewing a single bad movie about something that's basically unrelated (criticizing their religion)? It just seems like a stretch. It makes a lot more logical sense to say that a movie which harshly criticizes Islam will generate a response from people who have very specific types of pro-Islamic views (I won't debate interpretations of the Koran, that is another matter).
Also he seems to take certain US actions as being definitively negative, and assumes that the protesters all share his view. For one thing he mentions the US sanctions on Iraq. But those sanctions were placed on Iraq for invading Kuwait...in theory Iraqis should have been angry that their leader, Saddam Hussein, didn't capitulate and let his own citizens starve to death because of his desire for conquest and control. Secondly it wasn't just the US it was the entire UN security council. But I guess we should assume for the sake of argument that the US has done 100x worse than other countries in other areas.
Also about drone strikes, I'm sure people probably would be angry. But for those who aren't immediately related to the people who died as a result of collateral damage, do you think that they view these drone strikes as being say a hundred times more negative than the messy, but positive result of deposing their country of an evil dictator who committed his own crimes against humanity and giving them a chance at democracy? Maybe those people see drone strikes as a necessary evil, and the majority are thankful that the US did free them from Saddam Hussein's rule (or the threat of the taliban in Afghanistan).
I guess all I'm saying is you don't really know, at least as far as this article is concerned. We know from this thread that there are sympathetic rallies for America in the streets that have been rising up; so clearly that anti-American sentiment isn't universal or they probably wouldn't care. Or maybe it still is, but its not as bad as the author makes it out to be and what they're primarily responding to is a particular branch of extremist Islamists, in which case these violent protests truly were about religion (again ignoring Libya). Until we see some more precise polls or research on this topic, that article doesn't really add anything meaningful.
To summarize, I read it as pretty much one author's personal beliefs or views of righteous anti-American anger that he generalizes upon populations in the middle east without any solid evidence to back it up, in the face of sympathetic protests that show a respectful attitude towards Americans that shun the behaviour of other protesters. But I'm sure you're one of those people who are walking encyclopedias so I would enjoy hearing what you have to say
I will not profess to now that much about Islam/Muslim/Arab culture, and I certainly do not believe the acts of a reported few should be representive of an entire culture. That being said, someone on here reported that there are 1.6 Billion Muslims world wide, with aproximately 1 million representing those who have feelings or behave in similar fashion to those inviduals who have, and are in the process of attacking US, German, UK, etc. consolets and embassies. If Muslims do not want to be judged on the acts of a reported few then they need to "take care of their own house" and put an end this insanity. At some point this reported minority of Muslims will do something so horrendous that the rest of the world will not respond in a measured fashion. If it gets to that point innocence on both sides will certainly suffer.
Of course this movie is a peace of shit full of hate and disrespect, but if I insult you, even if you're hardly offended, you won't cross the border and kill the Starsbourg's major nor burning the french flag roaring "Töten wir alle französish !!".
You'll yell, riot, prosecute me, threaten me at the most.
The reaction of this minority is disproportionate and violent against innocent people who didn't insult them.
[/QUOTE]
to be honest i dont think its entirely their (the muslim people etc) own fault that the middle-east became so damn extreme. so i guess we, or should i say the governmants have their part in it too.
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
And when you actually research this stuff more deeply, it only gets more and more depressing.
The classic:
"The white man did it."
I wonder if the left-wingers realize just how offensive they really are when they talk about muslim people (Which is the sole unifying element from the middle-east to Morroco) and treat them like children.
How cruel one must be to deny another human, equality.
Suddenly, muslims are made out to be "not-quite-human," little more than automatons that await input from the white man, before they can react. Unable to control their own destiny, never have agency.
It is no surprise that it is those same people that lead the charge on:
"Muslims can't handle democracy!"
As if they are subhumans.
Hold all people to the same standard as you would a westerner. How would you react if Americans had executed muslims because they burned a flag?
Stop looking at muslims and think "well, they don't know any better." They are human beings, treat them like it. Hold them up to equal standards. If all of mankind is equal, why would you pretend that we do not all carry the same weight of acting right and moral?
Regardless of race, place of birth, or religion, all people should be held up to the same standard.
I wouldn't mind if USA tested some nuclear bombs about now and this is coming from someone who used to be rather pacifistic. There doesn't seem to be a solution. Acting apathetic won't solve anything either.
sraeli filmmaker in hiding after anti-Islam movie sparks deadly Libya, Egypt protests Film by Sam Bacile, who self-identifies as an Israeli Jew, led to protests at the U.S. consulate in Libya and the U.S. Embassy in Cairo; one American staffer killed in clashes.
Bacile, a California real estate developer in his fifties who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world. "
"Islam is a cancer, period," he repeatedly said in a solemn, accented tone.
The two-hour movie, "Innocence of Muslims," cost $5 million to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
Op should change this. Bacile was a name used to cover up his real identity. He is most likely not Jewish.
I can agree that he hides his true identity, the last person to even draw a cartoon picture of muhammad was killed by muslim extremists over in denmark.
Also to Sourna, I'm not sure what your argueing but their has been anti-American and anti-Jewish protests all over the middle east from the film. The attack might have been sparked by that, or by a september 11th anniversary plot by terrorists, it doesn't matter.
People are burning flags and trying to scale Embassy walls because Muhammad is being insulted. That is ridiculous.
People have a right to be angry, people do not have a right to violence. Just because people cannot take a joke does not give them the right to try and inflict harm upon ambassadors.
You do realize that the ones who "inflicted harm upon the ambassador", as in "killed him", did so not because of the movie but because they were terrorists who wanted to kill him regardless of the movie? Did you even read Souma's posts? There's a difference between the protesters who are demonstrating because of the movie and the actual terrorist act which had nothing to do with it.
Yes I am not just talking about Lybia
In Yemen, demonstrators breached a security wall at the U.S. Embassy as several thousand people protested outside. Four protesters died during clashes with security forces outside the embassy, according to Yemeni security officials. Twenty-four security force members were reported injured, as were 11 protesters, according to Yemen's Defense Ministry, security officials and eyewitnesses. -- In Egypt, site of one of the largest, longest-lasting protests, at least 13 civilians and six police officers were injured Thursday, according to Egyptian government officials. Throngs continued to pack the area in front of the Cairo embassy on Friday morning, as a large fire burned and security guarded the area. The instability in Egypt is a primary concern to U.S. President Barack Obama, who warned in an interview with Telemundo that it would be "a real big problem" if Egypt's leaders fail to protect American interests there. -- In Tunisia and Morocco, protesters massed in front of U.S. embassies. -- In Gaza City, Palestinians demonstrated outside U.N. headquarters, and about 200 Palestinians protested the film at the Palestine Legislative Council building. In one instance, Palestinian men burned a U.S. flag. -- In Tel Aviv, Israel, about 50 people demonstrated in front of the U.S. Embassy. -- Iranians protested near the Swiss Embassy in Tehran on Thursday. Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran, since Washington and Tehran do not have diplomatic relations. Up to 500 people chanted "Death to America!" and called for death to the director of the movie. The Islamic Propagation Coordination Council, meanwhile, has issued a statement calling for rallies across Iran on Friday "to protest Zionist-U.S. plots against Muslim and Islamic values," the state-run IRNA news agency reported. -- In Iraq, specifically in the predominantly Shiite area of eastern Baghdad known as Sadr City, hundreds of protesters hit the streets to protest the film. They chanted, "America is the enemy of the people," with some burning an American flag. Other followers of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr also protested in the provinces of Najaf and Karbala. So far, the violence has not spread to Afghanistan, where there is a high potential for outrage to erupt into destabilizing chaos. Obama and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, have expressed their commitment to prevent that from happening. The Afghan government has ordered an indefinite block of YouTube to prevent people there from watching the clips and staging violent protests. YouTube has already restricted access to the video.
Yemen (and to a lesser extent Egypt) are pretty problematic. You can condemn them if you'd like. Just don't be bigoted towards people who aren't involved in the matter, as most people have been. But before people blindly direct their rage, it'd be nice if everyone actually took the time to educate themselves on U.S. - Middle Eastern relations. The anti-American rage that a lot of Muslims harbor stems much further than a movie. We're merely just giving them more reasons to hate us, as if they didn't have enough already.
To the best of my knowledge i know it is against Islam to depict Muhammad in any way. This film crosses that line and I can understand the outrage. The film maker is not Islamic however and does not have to follow the rules of that religion. Like it or not he is within his rights according to the U.S. constitution to release a video such as the one he did. People must accept that.
It is against Islam to depict Muhammad, but there are many depictions of Muhammad that people do not care about. There's a depiction of him on the U.S. Supreme Court building, and Iran has many depictions of him as well. Most people are outraged that it is offensive, but the ones disturbing the peace are a minority (compared to the overall Muslim population, the amount of protestors is miniscule, and the ones utilizing violence are pale in comparison). Those inciting violence should definitely be condemned.
I have accepted the fact that most middle-eastern countries dislike us. I don't know why, and I do not care to learn why so long as the dispute remains verbal. Even burning flags and chanting "Death to America" does not bother me. When violence gets introduced, I care.
People are calling for the film makers head, and his life is in danger. It's sickening.
Blindly accepting their dislike does no one any good. If you're so averse to violence you have an obligation to know why they hate us. We've perpetrated more violence and killed tons more innocent people in the Middle East since the onset of the Cold War than they ever have, but I won't get into specifics because that would be straying off-topic.
I don't care why they hate us. Whatever reasons they have are just shortcomings that they cannot see past. Hate comes from weakness, not strength.
It's like trying to figure out why the North Koreans hate us, doesn't matter. It's my personal opinion that they do it as a scapegoat to make their leaders seem more tolerable.
zalz, I think you're right for the most part, but I think there's still the old occidental arrogance in the suggestion that democracy is superior to the political systems they use over there, as if there was a linear progression from dictatorships to the democracy.
It's not so much that they're not "good enough" for democracy, it's that they have a different culture that doesn't necessarily naturally lean toward it.
So when will the US finally do something about this? I'm not saying aggressive action, I mean evacuating the embassies and such. Why is nothing being done to protect the embassies? So confusing... If the country wants to live like that, fuck em. Pack up and gtfo and let them live in their fictional world.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: For anyone who cares, I found an enlightening article on why these events occur.
A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
And when you actually research this stuff more deeply, it only gets more and more depressing.
The classic:
"The white man did it."
I wonder if the left-wingers realize just how offensive they really are when they talk about muslim people (Which is the sole unifying element from the middle-east to Morroco) and treat them like children.
How cruel one must be to deny another human, equality.
Suddenly, muslims are made out to be "not-quite-human," little more than automatons that await input from the white man, before they can react. Unable to control their own destiny, never have agency.
It is no surprise that it is those same people that lead the charge on:
"Muslims can't handle democracy!"
As if they are subhumans.
Hold all people to the same standard as you would a westerner. How would you react if Americans had executed muslims because they burned a flag?
Stop looking at muslims and think "well, they don't know any better." They are human beings, treat them like it. Hold them up to equal standards. If all of mankind is equal, why would you pretend that we do not all carry the same weight of acting right and moral?
Regardless of race, place of birth, or religion, all people should be held up to the same standard.
"take up the white man's burden"
I am no cultural relativist, while I think there are certainly problems with all cultures there are definitely some things we do better than other cultures, notably women's rights and free expression. But cultural change is a slow process and you cannot deny the damage that has been done to these people over the centuries from imperialism, exploitation and conflict. Culturally they've been cast adrift and clinging to religion is understandable given how little else in their world offers any real stability or solutions. They're wrong to do so and in time they'll work it out but it's going to be a slow process and changing the leaders and imposing institutions from the top down won't change that. Cultural evolution is required, revolution just sweeps away the superficial and encourages people to cling harder to their certainties.
They don't know any better because nobody taught them any better because where they learned about the world there was no better. I'm not going to defend their beliefs, their beliefs are retarded, but I think there is a degree of explaining as to how they why they have them. Their country is shitty and a reasonable part of the blame for that is ours and going "why can't they be as smart as us?" ignores the fact that if you'd been born there you'd be retarded too.
And still it continues. I'm really wondering why action hasn't been taken to spot the violence of the protests yet, just like for example where the people were killed, I don't know why they didn't open fire on them as soon as they jumped the damn wall of the embassy. Also, getting back to a point I made earlier, I haven't seen an "anti- violence protest" this large in comparison.
We are individualists. We thinks about individuals before groups. It comes from our philosophers, who thought about it hundreds years ago.
In these countries, they obviously dont know what individualism is. They think obviously that people are "groups" and not "individuals". So, when an american does something like this, they think "ok, its the usa who did this shit". Because they are not individualists. And, as a group, they react with violence.
So muslims philosophers wrote things about individualism hundreds years ago too. But there thoughts are not impacting muslims countries enough, obviously.
And sorry for my poor english, i'm trying to get better but thats hard
LOL how they burned down the german embassy in Sudan and how the islamists are out to burn and destroy stuff in the middle east and Northern Africa. Of course these guys are still the minority, but these countries obviously have massive problems with extremism.
In my opinion we should get the fuck out of there, They will still like the petrodollar, but the interaction should be minimalized. Oh and every western nation should give some weaponry to Israel before leaving, just to prevent the inevatible try of arabic nations to throw the jews into the sea.
On September 15 2012 01:38 Insoleet wrote: We are individualists. We thinks about individuals before groups. It comes from our philosophers, who thought about it hundreds years ago.
In these countries, they obviously dont know what individualism is. They think obviously that people are "groups" and not "individuals". So, when an american does something like this, they think "ok, its the usa who did this shit". Because they are not individualists. And, as a group, they react with violence.
So muslims philosophers wrote things about individualism hundreds years ago too. But there thoughts are not impacting muslims countries enough, obviously.
And sorry for my poor english, i'm trying to get better but thats hard
The crazy thing is that years ago (hundreds) Muslim society used to be very open and was once the center for philosophy and science (hence why many stars are named Arab names - since they found them first) but once a very radical religious leader (I forget who exactly it was) came into power, it just has gone downhill since then.
On September 15 2012 01:38 Insoleet wrote: We are individualists. We thinks about individuals before groups. It comes from our philosophers, who thought about it hundreds years ago.
In these countries, they obviously dont know what individualism is. They think obviously that people are "groups" and not "individuals". So, when an american does something like this, they think "ok, its the usa who did this shit". Because they are not individualists. And, as a group, they react with violence.
So muslims philosophers wrote things about individualism hundreds years ago too. But there thoughts are not impacting muslims countries enough, obviously.
And sorry for my poor english, i'm trying to get better but thats hard
The crazy thing is that years ago (hundreds) Muslim society used to be very open and was once the center for philosophy and science (hence why many stars are named Arab names - since they found them first) but once a very radical religious leader (I forget who exactly it was) came into power, it just has gone downhill since then.
On September 15 2012 01:31 Silidons wrote: And still it continues. I'm really wondering why action hasn't been taken to spot the violence of the protests yet, just like for example where the people were killed, I don't know why they didn't open fire on them as soon as they jumped the damn wall of the embassy. Also, getting back to a point I made earlier, I haven't seen an "anti- violence protest" this large in comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdzAg1SnVE
Shit like this makes me wish we released a video like this on the reg. Maybe they would grow thicker skin.
On September 15 2012 01:31 Silidons wrote: And still it continues. I'm really wondering why action hasn't been taken to spot the violence of the protests yet, just like for example where the people were killed, I don't know why they didn't open fire on them as soon as they jumped the damn wall of the embassy. Also, getting back to a point I made earlier, I haven't seen an "anti- violence protest" this large in comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdzAg1SnVE
Well the governments of the respective countries organise/tolerate such incidents and use them to deflect from innerpolitical problems. Oh and in some of them (Sudan, Jemen etc) the political elite hates the west, too, they just love our money even more. So it is pretty easy to get shit like this rolling
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
If I continuously insult your mother in front of you, you will react however you will react largely because perhaps you can't avoid it. But if I said something about your mother on the Internet and you went out and punched someone else, then you're an imbecile. And if you went after me, then I'd consider you dumb as well, because nothing keeps you from just not looking at it and not thinking about it. More importantly, why would you right away resort to physical violence?
And yes Muslims should be allowed to protest, but what are they going to protest against? The specific individuals who have the rights to make those videos or the government which allows them? Either way, it's a bit ridiculous.
On September 14 2012 13:30 Souma wrote:
On September 14 2012 13:24 Silidons wrote:
On September 14 2012 13:18 Souma wrote:
On September 14 2012 12:54 Djzapz wrote:
On September 14 2012 12:45 Orek wrote:
On September 14 2012 12:03 Djzapz wrote: "If a person overreacts to the mildest little thing, you don't blame the mildest little thing for the actions of the person."
Yep, and the movie was not the mildest little thing. That's all.
Yes it was the mildest thing for fuck's sake. I can't get mad at extremists for being extremists, those people are broken and unrecoverable. However, commoners on TL shouldn't get those ridiculous ideas in their heads.
Mature people don't get angry when stupid people do stupid things. More importantly, they don't MURDER people who aren't even responsible for those stupid things.
There's something wrong with people who demand an excessive amount of respect from a culture which promotes free speech. Mature people control their emotions, they don't demand blood. That video if nothing in comparison to some of the vicious blows that are thrown between for instance atheists and christians, and that just fine... But somehow it's worse when the reaction is more dramatic?
By that reasoning, I can get out of any situation by crying or yelling. Oh, let's never make fun of that guy's beliefs because he's particularly sensitive! Let's censor that because we wouldn't want to hurt him.
I love the hypocrisy rampant in this thread. 'We have the right to be immature and strut our free speech, but they should just shut up and take it like men!'
Are you angry because extremists murdered innocents over a video? If so, you have nothing to worry about, because those people were not murdered because of the video (more on that here: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/libyan-attacks-said-be-2-part-militant-assault). Or are you angry because other people are demonstrating their own right to free speech by protesting?
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
If you continuously insult my mother in front of me after I repeatedly ask you not to, don't be surprised if I punch you in the face. If you roll into Compton and drop n-bombs on a group of blacks, you have no one to blame but yourself if you get jumped.
There is a line that is crossed when you repeatedly and knowingly offend someone and try to illicit action. Even our justice system realizes this and can acquit someone or lessen their sentence on the grounds of provocation. While in this case, murder is not justified (and a different story entirely as the video did not prompt the attack), Muslims are well within their right to be angry and protest (thank god for freedom of speech!)
you're out of touch with reality. the man did not jump in front of muslims and say "WATCH THIS NOW". he made a film in an entire different country, which only people who CHOOSE to watch can watch it.
You're still missing the point. The video was created with the intent to offend and directly aimed at Muslims. They may not have been forced to watch it, but if they did (which they did), then all's the same and my point still stands. That's the reality.
Or what, if I watch a movie on my own volition I can't get mad if it's a total piece of junk? Now that would be silly.
There are plenty of videos on youtube that aim to provoke atheists and Christians. They generate hateful comments, not bodies. Big deal. Some people like to tell me that I'm going to hell and I deserve it. If they say it on youtube, I'll disregard it.
Anyway, going to bed. Cheers.
The Muslims are protesting against the movie. How hard is it to understand that? They're not out there fuming at every single American. Your example doesn't really have any place in this conversation as it's taken way out of context (first of all, their frustration is directed at the right target (the movie), and second of all, they did not murder those people because of the video).
And it does not matter if atheists or Christians get angry or not at the youtube videos they see. You base the situation on whether or not these Muslims are within their own right to be angry or not, which, as I've said, they definitely are. Just like if some Germans were to make a video that glorified Nazis and the Holocaust, Jews would be well within their right to express their outrage as well, or if some idiot Japanese made a video glorifying the Rape of Nanking, you can bet the Chinese would be furious.
If you continually insult my mother or anyone, then we will probably get into a verbal argument, but I would never violently attack you, no matter how vile the insults are. And any violent reaction would be disproportionate, wrong, and criminal. You keep saying that the violence of these protesters is not acceptable, yet with these flimsy examples and appeals to how badly the Middle East has been exploited by the West, you continue to apologize and sympathize on their behalf.
That’s right, not the American embassy, the German embassy. And as the link says, they’re rioting, vandalizing and burning buildings because of the film mocking Muhammad, so this is a religiously motivated attack. Your argument throughout this thread is basically that their feelings are hurt so badly that this sort of senseless and indiscriminate rampaging is defensible. But they’re not even directing their rage at the right place. Why the German embassy instead of the American embassy? Probably because the American embassy is protected, so they’re violently fuming at anything Western.
Today, there’s a statement from the Muslim Brotherhood in the NYTImes.
Today’s world is a global village; nations are closer than ever before. In such a world, respect for values and figures — religious or otherwise — that nations hold dear is a necessary requirement to build sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships.
Despite our resentment of the continued appearance of productions like the anti-Muslim film that led to the current violence, we do not hold the American government or its citizens responsible for acts of the few that abuse the laws protecting freedom of expression.
In a new democratic Egypt, Egyptians earned the right to voice their anger over such issues, and they expect their government to uphold and protect their right to do so. However, they should do so peacefully and within the bounds of the law.
The breach of the United States Embassy premises by Egyptian protesters is illegal under international law. The failure of the protecting police force has to be investigated.
We are relieved that no embassy staff in Cairo were harmed. Egypt is going through a state of revolutionary fluidity, and public anger needs to be dealt with responsibly and with caution. Our condolences to the American people for the loss of their ambassador and three members of the embassy staff in Libya.
We hope that the relationships that both Americans and Egyptians worked to build in the past couple of months can sustain the turbulence of this week’s events. Our nations have much to learn from each other as we embark on building the new Egypt.
KHAIRAT EL-SHATER Deputy President, Muslim Brotherhood Cairo, Sept. 13, 2012
This is a good statement, except for the part where El-Shater calls this an abuse of freedom of expression. It’s not. Muslims need to understand this. We will not apologize for exercising our freedom of speech. As citizens of a Western country, we have the freedom to mock any religious deity that we want. If you don’t like this fact, you can either lobby for the First Amendment to be abolished, go to China, or protest peacefully. Yet despite what El-Shater said, these are not peaceful protests. They are still continuing in Egypt and they are violent.
Yet you keep defending these violent protesters, because you claim that their outrage is justified. After all, they’ve been “exploited” by the West. You call it a small percentage of extremists. Yes, I agree, it is a small percentage of Muslims that are violent extremists, but all violence is a small percentage, so that explains nothing. Compare this to the Tibetans who have been mass murdered by the Chinese in the hundreds of thousands, they’ve suffered far worse oppression and exploitation, yet do not go on religiously motivated and deadly rampages like the ones in the links given.
You claim that Muslims are fuming just because of the movie, but you’ve also been arguing that they’re fuming at America and the Western world in general. And then you link this article which suggests the latter.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: For anyone who cares, I found an enlightening article on why these events occur.
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
And when you actually research this stuff more deeply, it only gets more and more depressing.
The article reveals that the US is caught in a no win situation. Either the US props up brutal governments hated by the people in these Middle Eastern countries which have led to anti-Americanism, or the US can support the Arab spring and let the people overthrow these governments. And the US has done the latter, yet the populace hates the US just the same. In fact, the article claims that in supporting the Arab Spring the US has armed anti-American rebels. Here are some other quotes in the article you linked.
Of course, there is absolutely no justification for the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and several of his entourage as well as Libyan security personnel. And yes, the attacks, and the larger anti-American protests in which they took place, remind us about the powerful strain of unchecked and often unthinking - certainly uncritical - anger and revenge that defines Islam for millions of its adherents. […] The Brotherhood may have learned the democratic game, but it's a very circumscribed and corporatist view of democracy that has traditionally shown little tolerance for diverse views and life choices that might challenge normative views (although the most recent Satanic metal episode might signal the beginnings of a shift, as I pointed out in my last column). Such a view is of course not much different to that of the Republican Party today, not to mention the religious right in Israel, India and numerous other countries.
But that only means that politics and religion continue to generate chauvinism, hatred, violence and discrimination wherever they combine, even as the chances of keeping them separate seems to diminish with each passing year.
For now this is all I have to say on the matter. But I have no doubt that these violent protests will continue so that there will be a lot more to discuss as events unfold. It’s now spread to Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nigeria and Tunisia. I leave you with the latest words from Hilary Clinton:
In her remarks, Clinton repeated much of what she's said in the last two days. Namely that the Benghazi attack was carried out by a "small and savage group," and that the United States completely rejects what she called the "inflammable and despicable" anti-Muslim film circulating the Internet. However, Clinton pointed out all religions have faced insults and denigration, but that's no justification for violence. The response to such insults is what separates people of true faith from those who would use religion as an excuse to commit violent acts, she said.
"When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence," said Clinton. "The same goes for all faiths, including Islam."
"I so strongly believe that the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They have withstood offense for centuries," said Clinton." Refraining from violence, then, is not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a sign that one's faith is unshakable."
I’ve been watching the Al Jazeera live stream. It is very depressing and saddening. Enough is enough. But, please, keep defending these violent Muslim protesters.
the trailers of "Innocence of the Muslims" are really lulzy. Everything seems to be done in a studio with bad acoustics and blue screen. It is really provocative. Just don't let yourselves get provoked, dudes. Why the violence, ffs?
On September 15 2012 01:31 Silidons wrote: And still it continues. I'm really wondering why action hasn't been taken to spot the violence of the protests yet, just like for example where the people were killed, I don't know why they didn't open fire on them as soon as they jumped the damn wall of the embassy. Also, getting back to a point I made earlier, I haven't seen an "anti- violence protest" this large in comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdzAg1SnVE
I am curious, which city do you live in the States in? And if a tourist is mugged or some random innocent person is murdered, do you and all your friends get together and go launch a protest against violence? Normal people have stuff to do, and most of that stuff does not include being attacked by mobs of insane terrorism supporters. The genius of these terrorist initiated protests is that they are cheap yet manage to do more harm to Muslim-Western relations than any terror attack could. Less than 1% of the population is involved yet Americans are already read to just 'leave the Middle East' or condemn everyone who lives there a savage because the arrival of some sort of semi-freedom didnt magical turn all the poor, uneducated people who were oppressed for the last 40-50 years into average joe Americans.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: For anyone who cares, I found an enlightening article on why these events occur.
A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
And when you actually research this stuff more deeply, it only gets more and more depressing.
The classic:
"The white man did it."
I wonder if the left-wingers realize just how offensive they really are when they talk about muslim people (Which is the sole unifying element from the middle-east to Morroco) and treat them like children.
How cruel one must be to deny another human, equality.
Suddenly, muslims are made out to be "not-quite-human," little more than automatons that await input from the white man, before they can react. Unable to control their own destiny, never have agency.
It is no surprise that it is those same people that lead the charge on:
"Muslims can't handle democracy!"
As if they are subhumans.
Hold all people to the same standard as you would a westerner. How would you react if Americans had executed muslims because they burned a flag?
Stop looking at muslims and think "well, they don't know any better." They are human beings, treat them like it. Hold them up to equal standards. If all of mankind is equal, why would you pretend that we do not all carry the same weight of acting right and moral?
Regardless of race, place of birth, or religion, all people should be held up to the same standard.
"take up the white man's burden"
I am no cultural relativist, while I think there are certainly problems with all cultures there are definitely some things we do better than other cultures, notably women's rights and free expression. But cultural change is a slow process and you cannot deny the damage that has been done to these people over the centuries from imperialism, exploitation and conflict. Culturally they've been cast adrift and clinging to religion is understandable given how little else in their world offers any real stability or solutions. They're wrong to do so and in time they'll work it out but it's going to be a slow process and changing the leaders and imposing institutions from the top down won't change that. Cultural evolution is required, revolution just sweeps away the superficial and encourages people to cling harder to their certainties.
They don't know any better because nobody taught them any better because where they learned about the world there was no better. I'm not going to defend their beliefs, their beliefs are retarded, but I think there is a degree of explaining as to how they why they have them. Their country is shitty and a reasonable part of the blame for that is ours and going "why can't they be as smart as us?" ignores the fact that if you'd been born there you'd be retarded too.
But most people who are from that part of the world don't riot in the streets and try to murder innocent people when something like this happens. So you can hold the people that commit those acts to the same moral standard as the Western world. You can explain the outbursts of violence - an inability to understand the nature and extent of free speech in the West, an extreme religious climate, and a young male population suffering from tremendously high unemployment - but that doesn't excuse the violence.
"When Christians are subject to insults to their faith, and that certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence. When Hindus or Buddhists are subjected to insults to their faiths, and that also certainly happens, we expect them not to resort to violence," said Clinton. "The same goes for all faiths, including Islam."
On September 15 2012 02:12 ecstatica wrote: Lol were there any interviews with film makers after this has unfolded? I'm just curious what they react like on camera lol.
Do you feel guilty? Do you know that people are dieing because of your movie as we speak? Some good questions that would sell well.
The film maker, no. Last I heard he was in hiding being protected by the FBI. Remember what happened to the danish cartoon maker?
The actors and actresses, yes. They said they were duped and did not know what the film was about.
On September 15 2012 01:31 Silidons wrote: And still it continues. I'm really wondering why action hasn't been taken to spot the violence of the protests yet, just like for example where the people were killed, I don't know why they didn't open fire on them as soon as they jumped the damn wall of the embassy. Also, getting back to a point I made earlier, I haven't seen an "anti- violence protest" this large in comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVdzAg1SnVE
I am curious, which city do you live in the States in? And if a tourist is mugged or some random innocent person is murdered, do you and all your friends get together and go launch a protest against violence? Normal people have stuff to do, and most of that stuff does not include being attacked by mobs of insane terrorism supporters. The genius of these terrorist initiated protests is that they are cheap yet manage to do more harm to Muslim-Western relations than any terror attack could. Less than 1% of the population is involved yet Americans are already read to just 'leave the Middle East' or condemn everyone who lives there a savage because the arrival of some sort of semi-freedom didnt magical turn all the poor, uneducated people who were oppressed for the last 40-50 years into average joe Americans.
It seems like you said a whole lot to say nothing at all. I don't partake in any protests even if I support the cause.
That 1% argument is really old. Have you ever heard of the expression "Actions speak louder than words"?
At least three die as protesters attack U.S. embassy in Tunis
TUNIS (Reuters) - At least three people died and 28 others were wounded on Friday after hundreds of protesters incensed by a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad attacked the U.S. embassy in the Tunisian capital, state television said.
A Reuters reporter had seen police open fire to try to quell the assault, in which protesters managed to penetrate the embassy building.
If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
you should really not become a diplomat then, rofl
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
Why do people who post extreme answers like this never give a reason why to do what they say?
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
you should really not become a diplomat then, rofl
Yeah let's just shrug at killing diplomats, burning US schools, attack other Western embassies and UN camps.
You should totally shrug?
* Edit
It is totally unacceptable to attack diplomatic posts. If this happens you have to make a firm stand to make people think twice.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
Embassies are not all about support. The US gets benefits for having them there. Especially US citizen who are in those countries for various reasons.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
Too many special interests in these countries for the US to just pull everything out.
I just watched the so called movie, and let me tell you. How the fuck could anyone take this shit seriously? I mean even if I was religious the movie was probably the worst composed thing I have ever seen in my life. They really rioted over something so stupid? Its times like these were I wish religion didn't exist.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
you should really not become a diplomat then, rofl
Yeah let's just shrug at killing diplomats, burning US schools, attack other Western embassies and UN camps.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
you should really not become a diplomat then, rofl
Yeah let's just shrug at killing diplomats, burning US schools, attack other Western embassies and UN camps.
You should totally shrug?
no. But you should also not overreact.
Clearly the governments in these countries cannot control their citizens (and honestly, I doubt they really want to because they also dislike western civilization), so at what point do we (USA, Germany, Great Britain) step in to control the riots?
On September 15 2012 02:52 Boblhead wrote: I just watched the so called movie, and let me tell you. How the fuck could anyone take this shit seriously? I mean even if I was religious the movie was probably the worst composed thing I have ever seen in my life. They really rioted over something so stupid? Its times like these were I wish religion didn't exist.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
Why do people who post extreme answers like this never give a reason why to do what they say?
Because there is no reason, or it is a bad one and they rely on emotional intensity rather than logic and reason. At times I debate within myself whether to call them on their faulty points or simply to let them go unanswered, hoping they will assume their reasoning is flawed.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
you should really not become a diplomat then, rofl
Yeah let's just shrug at killing diplomats, burning US schools, attack other Western embassies and UN camps.
You should totally shrug?
no. But you should also not overreact.
Clearly the governments in these countries cannot control their citizens (and honestly, I doubt they really want to because they also dislike western civilization), so at what point do we (USA, Germany, Great Britain) step in to control the riots?
The west shouldn't control the riots. It is the duty of the state to grant the safety of the embassy (not of the ambassadors state). If they cannot do this, the embassy gets closed for a while and some day the diplomats maybe return. Were the states unwilling to or unable to prevent this from happening? That is not easy to answer.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
you should really not become a diplomat then, rofl
Yeah let's just shrug at killing diplomats, burning US schools, attack other Western embassies and UN camps.
You should totally shrug?
no. But you should also not overreact.
Clearly the governments in these countries cannot control their citizens (and honestly, I doubt they really want to because they also dislike western civilization), so at what point do we (USA, Germany, Great Britain) step in to control the riots?
The west shouldn't control the riots. It is the duty of the state to grant the safety of the embassy (not of the ambassadors state). If they cannot do this, the embassy gets closed for a while and some day the diplomats maybe return. Were the states unwilling to or unable to prevent this from happening? That is not easy to answer.
^This was basically what I meant with recalling and cutting ties.
On September 15 2012 02:52 Boblhead wrote: I just watched the so called movie, and let me tell you. How the fuck could anyone take this shit seriously? I mean even if I was religious the movie was probably the worst composed thing I have ever seen in my life. They really rioted over something so stupid? Its times like these were I wish religion didn't exist.
note-I'm not arguing to anyone on religion, I am simply stating I wish religion didn't exist.
i bet you $230 of those muslims watched the movie - its one person who tells someone and it spreads like wildfire. "American showed the profit muheemad and mocked his holy name! rabble rabble!" etc etc.
The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more.
how are we supposed to take these countries seriously ? I mean who the fuck kills people for a god damn shitty movie, what's their goal they're trying to achieve ? " look we're tough we kill your friends because of a movie ! look look ! " Is that it ? is that their fucking goal ?
On September 15 2012 03:40 fluidin wrote: ^ I think it's a in a fit of anger thing. They aren't thinking so much, or perhaps aren't even thinking at all.
Well, that much is obvious.
I just think it shows the insanity of this group thinking. It is like a starving man throwing away food.
Suddenly, everything and everyone belongs to these groups. Destroying a KFC suddenly becomes a revolutionairy act, because, surely, KFC is America, right?
What is the reality? Several people in the area will not be going back to work next week. They are going to have to be hooked up to the wellfare-IV of oil money.
The truth is that these collectivist movements aren't the result of poverty, they are a large cause of it.
They throw away everything, just to be part of the group. And you know what is worst? They throw away other people's possessions and rights. All for the greater good, be it some political movement or in this case a religious system that begs to be defended.
People are going to be out of work, and no amount of prayer is going to feed their stomachs.
The cold hard truth is that several years down the road, this region is going to have no purpose. It doesn't have a highly educated population, its governments aren't adapting, the corruption mixed with totalitarian government strangles any individuals chance to do something for themselves.
Everyone just keeps being forced into the group, and anyone that doesn't play ball can get their throat slit at the drop of a hat.
In a region where people have precious few rights and no real economic future, it is cartoons and movies that move them towards protest.
These people are being deprived a future, and they are being told (and gladly believe) that the biggest problem in their lives is not the lack of wealth, chances or rights, but the fact that some Jews are sitting on a piece of land without oil, and some people in lands so far away they couldn't even afford to ever see it, is drawing cartoons or making movies.
Selfishness, that is what these people need. A little more focus on self-interest, a little less on the "greater good."
On September 15 2012 03:40 fluidin wrote: ^ I think it's a in a fit of anger thing. They aren't thinking so much, or perhaps aren't even thinking at all.
Well, that much is obvious.
I just think it shows the insanity of this group thinking. It is like a starving man throwing away food.
Suddenly, everything and everyone belongs to these groups. Destroying a KFC suddenly becomes a revolutionairy act, because, surely, KFC is America, right?
What is the reality? Several people in the area will not be going back to work next week. They are going to have to be hooked up to the wellfare-IV of oil money.
The truth is that these collectivist movements aren't the result of poverty, they are a large cause of it.
They throw away everything, just to be part of the group. And you know what is worst? They throw away other people's possessions and rights. All for the greater good, be it some political movement or in this case a religious system that begs to be defended.
People are going to be out of work, and no amount of prayer is going to feed their stomachs.
The cold hard truth is that several years down the road, this region is going to have no purpose. It doesn't have a highly educated population, its governments aren't adapting, the corruption mixed with totalitarian government strangles any individuals chance to do something for themselves.
Everyone just keeps being forced into the group, and anyone that doesn't play ball can get their throat slit at the drop of a hat.
In a region where people have precious few rights and no real economic future, it is cartoons and movies that move them towards protest.
These people are being deprived a future, and they are being told (and gladly believe) that the biggest problem in their lives is not the lack of wealth, chances or rights, but the fact that some Jews are sitting on a piece of land without oil, and some people in lands so far away they couldn't even afford to ever see it, is drawing cartoons or making movies.
Selfishness, that is what these people need. A little more focus on self-interest, a little less on the "greater good."
On September 15 2012 03:35 zalz wrote: The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more.
Dunno, I remember methodically destroying a phone booth with my friend for a good hour, probably 19 at the time. We were wasted but Id imagine being a part of a herd can net worse results. Islam itself isnt directly responsible for the amount of cattle, Russia is a good example.
On September 15 2012 02:41 frontliner2 wrote: If I was Obama I would seriously recall all ambassadors and staff in every country where this happened and security was insufficient. I would also cut all ties.
Goodbye, you have lost all support fools!
edit*
new headline on aljazeera: "Protesters angered by anti-Islam video storm UN peacekeepers' camp in Egypt's Sinai. More soon...
Aside from the more obvious reasons it would be an overreaction, does it really make sense to dismantle the centerpieces of one's foreign intelligence network in countries rife with violent anti-American extremism? I mean, what's the follow-up, invade everywhere and declare a new American Empire?
On September 15 2012 03:40 fluidin wrote: ^ I think it's a in a fit of anger thing. They aren't thinking so much, or perhaps aren't even thinking at all.
Well, that much is obvious.
I just think it shows the insanity of this group thinking. It is like a starving man throwing away food.
Suddenly, everything and everyone belongs to these groups. Destroying a KFC suddenly becomes a revolutionairy act, because, surely, KFC is America, right?
What is the reality? Several people in the area will not be going back to work next week. They are going to have to be hooked up to the wellfare-IV of oil money.
The truth is that these collectivist movements aren't the result of poverty, they are a large cause of it.
They throw away everything, just to be part of the group. And you know what is worst? They throw away other people's possessions and rights. All for the greater good, be it some political movement or in this case a religious system that begs to be defended.
People are going to be out of work, and no amount of prayer is going to feed their stomachs.
The cold hard truth is that several years down the road, this region is going to have no purpose. It doesn't have a highly educated population, its governments aren't adapting, the corruption mixed with totalitarian government strangles any individuals chance to do something for themselves.
Everyone just keeps being forced into the group, and anyone that doesn't play ball can get their throat slit at the drop of a hat.
In a region where people have precious few rights and no real economic future, it is cartoons and movies that move them towards protest.
These people are being deprived a future, and they are being told (and gladly believe) that the biggest problem in their lives is not the lack of wealth, chances or rights, but the fact that some Jews are sitting on a piece of land without oil, and some people in lands so far away they couldn't even afford to ever see it, is drawing cartoons or making movies.
Selfishness, that is what these people need. A little more focus on self-interest, a little less on the "greater good."
I think the region could use a little less selfishness. Less of this "let me go murder some innocent people to advance my agenda and my after-life interests". Maybe a little less hoarding of the oil wealth by royalty, dictators, and elites (as well as their corporate and governmental sponsors in America) and a little more building up of infrastructure, education and social services for the general population. I think if the secular democracies had been allowed to do that, rather than being overthrown (thanks in no small part to the self interested machinations of foreign powers) then Islamic extremism wouldn't be nearly the problem it is now.
Also, your comment about them conflating a KFC with America... I for one, am glad they didn't all try to attack America directly.
On September 15 2012 03:35 zalz wrote: The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more.
Dunno, I remember methodically destroying a phone booth with my friend for a good hour, probably 19 at the time. We were wasted but Id imagine being a part of a herd can net worse results. Islam itself isnt directly responsible for the amount of cattle, Russia is a good example.
I don't see how Islam isn't responsible for people feeling like they are in a group. How else would so many come up and protest? Aren't they chanting about how they are defending their faith?
Not their literal faith, not defending their books from being stolen by a government, but defending in an abstract sense.
Islam certainly isn't the only belief system that forces people to think in terms of groups rather than individuals. There are plenty of political movements that can be even more group-minded.
Islam actually does have an element of individualism, but it has become unpopular. It rests in the way people are expected to read the quran. There are two major schools of thought, one argues that you should listen to an expert (imam) because he has spend the most time reading the quran, so he understands it best. The other school of thought argues that each individual should read the quran for himself, so you don't risk listening to a flawed imam.
The later school of thought hasn't been very popular of late. It is no surprise that suffi muslims, the one's that focus on the more spiritual aspect of Islam, and interpret the quran more loosely, are prime target for violence by both of the largest sects of Islam (Sunni/Shia).
The more individualist denominations have been getting stomped out for a good long time now. I don't think you can split Islam from the collectivists ideas that are inherent in it.
For example, one of the central ideas is the Ummah, the community of believers. There is a very powerful element of group > individual, and invasive collective thinking.
Perhaps the best examples of collectivism in Islam come from simply observing. Muslims are encouraged to call one another, in an almost Orwellian sense, brother and sister. Strangers, raised with the command to treat complete strangers as brothers and sisters.
Might sound nice, but from this sense of kinship comes the legitimacy to agressively dictate behaviour. Surely, I can't tell a random girl in a bar how to behave, but she is my sister in spirit, so surely I have an obligation to tell her how to behave!
Collectivism in action can simply be observed during the ramadan. A classmate of mine isn't exactly religious, but he adhered to the ramadan, simply because he knew that if he were to eat, he was going to get adressed on it, even by complete strangers. That is in Holland btw.
So, collectivism is a part of Islam, and it certainly isn't a perversion of any kind. In all honesty, I don't blame the religion for it. Considering the time in which it came about, collectivism was the only way to survive in the world. But we aren't living in 600 Arabia, there are more effective ways of organizing society, and a heavy emphasis on individuality is one of those.
I think the region could use a little less selfishness. Less of this "let me go murder some innocent people to advance my agenda and my after-life interests".
These people aren't killing in some machiavellian-scheme for power. They are more than willing to murder for the abstract notion of "defending the faith." They no doubt feel like they are fighting for their billion fellow believers.
Maybe a little less hoarding of the oil wealth by royalty, dictators, and elites (as well as their corporate and governmental sponsors in America) and a little more building up of infrastructure, education and social services for the general population.
I don't think there are all that many people that would argue that the oil flowing up towards a thieving upper class is a good status quo.
I think if the secular democracies had been allowed to do that, rather than being overthrown (thanks in no small part to the self interested machinations of foreign powers) then Islamic extremism wouldn't be nearly the problem it is now.
Secular democracies? The middle-east never had any of those.
Sure, Iran had a democracy and the US overthrew it, but I never understand what the point behind that is. Oke, so the US overthrew the democracy, so now Iran has to be a totalitarian theocratic state as some sort of punishment towards the US?
The people in Iran are human beings. Why are they not entitled to freedom? Why don't they deserve democracy? Why aren't they entitled to human rights?
Yes, the US fucked up on that account, so what? It seems odd to think that gives legitimacy to the Iranian government.
We aren't playing a giant game of risk. What the US did was wrong because it toppled a democratic regime. The reaction to that isn't to put a theocratic regime in power.
But sooner or later people have to recognize that time moves on. If you let history dictate today's policy, the US is entirely justified in destroying the muslim world, because technically they started it by capturing US ships in the founding years. Using history as foundation for grievances means endless strife and hatred.
Give me a history book and I can find you a valid reason to kill anyone. History is just that, history.
On September 14 2012 22:02 Souma wrote: For anyone who cares, I found an enlightening article on why these events occur.
A couple excerpts:
Americans and Europeans are no doubt looking at the protests over the "film", recalling the even more violent protests during the Danish cartoon affair, and shaking their heads one more at the seeming irrationality and backwardness of Muslims, who would let a work of "art", particularly one as trivial as this, drive them to mass protests and violence.
Yet Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians "by mistake", and wonder with equal bewilderment how "we" can be so barbaric and uncivilised.
Russia receives little better grades on this card, whether for its brutality in Afghanistan during the Soviet era, in Chechnya today, or its open support of Assad's murderous regime.
Meanwhile, the most jingoistic and hate-filled representatives of each society grow stronger with each attack, with little end in sight.
...
As I flew home yesterday from Europe, unaware of what had transpired in Libya, I read through the 2008 report by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, titled "From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Oppression: Human Rights in the Arab Region".
The report described the often unbearable levels of abuse suffered by citizens across the region is one of the most depressing reads imaginable. Every single government, from Morocco to Iraq, was defined by the systematic abuse of its citizens, denial of their most basic rights, and rampant corruption and violence. And in every case, such abuses and violence have been enabled by Western, Russian and other foreign interests.
Simply put, each and all the policies and actions described in the report - and 2008 was no better or worse than the years that proceeded or followed it - are as much forms of terror as the destruction of the World Trade Centre, invasion of Iraq, or attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle East and North Africa have for over half a century constituted one of the largest and most pernicious terror systems of the modern era. And the US, Europe, Russia, and now increasingly China have been accessories, co-conspirators, and often initiators of this terror throughout the period, working hand-in-hand with local governments to repress their peoples and ensure that wealth and power remain arrogated by a trusted few.
And when you actually research this stuff more deeply, it only gets more and more depressing.
I read most of the article, but I think there are a few important points that the author isn't really mentioning.
After researching US activities in the middle-east there are certainly many scholars that would say the protesters have reasons to be angry, notably the support the US has had in the past for various regimes. I would think one of the first questions would be, how many people in these middle-eastern countries are even aware of US backing of some of these regimes? Is there polling data to support this claim? And to the extent that they are aware, how much anti-American sentiment is actually there as a result? That is, is it enough that they would attack embassies (not talking about Libya) as a result of viewing a single bad movie about something that's basically unrelated (criticizing their religion)? It just seems like a stretch. It makes a lot more logical sense to say that a movie which harshly criticizes Islam will generate a response from people who have very specific types of pro-Islamic views (I won't debate interpretations of the Koran, that is another matter).
Also he seems to take certain US actions as being definitively negative, and assumes that the protesters all share his view. For one thing he mentions the US sanctions on Iraq. But those sanctions were placed on Iraq for invading Kuwait...in theory Iraqis should have been angry that their leader, Saddam Hussein, didn't capitulate and let his own citizens starve to death because of his desire for conquest and control. Secondly it wasn't just the US it was the entire UN security council. But I guess we should assume for the sake of argument that the US has done 100x worse than other countries in other areas.
Also about drone strikes, I'm sure people probably would be angry. But for those who aren't immediately related to the people who died as a result of collateral damage, do you think that they view these drone strikes as being say a hundred times more negative than the messy, but positive result of deposing their country of an evil dictator who committed his own crimes against humanity and giving them a chance at democracy? Maybe those people see drone strikes as a necessary evil, and the majority are thankful that the US did free them from Saddam Hussein's rule (or the threat of the taliban in Afghanistan).
I guess all I'm saying is you don't really know, at least as far as this article is concerned. We know from this thread that there are sympathetic rallies for America in the streets that have been rising up; so clearly that anti-American sentiment isn't universal or they probably wouldn't care. Or maybe it still is, but its not as bad as the author makes it out to be and what they're primarily responding to is a particular branch of extremist Islamists, in which case these violent protests truly were about religion (again ignoring Libya). Until we see some more precise polls or research on this topic, that article doesn't really add anything meaningful.
To summarize, I read it as pretty much one author's personal beliefs or views of righteous anti-American anger that he generalizes upon populations in the middle east without any solid evidence to back it up, in the face of sympathetic protests that show a respectful attitude towards Americans that shun the behaviour of other protesters. But I'm sure you're one of those people who are walking encyclopedias so I would enjoy hearing what you have to say
I have no evidence but I am quite sure most of the Muslim population know what the U.S. has done considering how much propaganda is spread through their channels (this we know).
The thing is, everything that article addressed, it addressed it in general terms. We were the first ones to draw the blood of innocents in the Middle East after WW2. In mid-20th century Iran, we instigated a coup and propped up a dictator with military and monetary aid and enabled him to slaughter his citizens and kept them repressed for decades. In 1988 we shot down a commercial airplane that was flying over Iranian territorial waters, killing close to 300 civilians.
In Egypt and Yemen, we did the same - we propped up dictators that repressed their populace and brutally murdered them left and right (a colonial era mentality to create stable regimes that would support us as opposed to the Soviets during the Cold War). And now in Yemen we're killing civilian after civilian with drone strikes (and if you don't think this affects the entire country, you are quite wrong. Look how much hatred the killing of four U.S. innocents has incited). Libya is a rarer case from the Middle East, as although our relations have been strained in the past, there has never been much bloodshed or oppression enabled by the U.S (only retaliation really). In fact, a lot of Libyans are grateful towards us for helping them with the Arab Spring (as seen in the pro-American rallies), but a small group of extremists are sympathetic towards terrorists.
Iraq and Afghanistan are more recent cases that most people know. What most people don't know about Iraq is how the U.S., with the consent of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, sold them chemical/biological weapons such as anthrax and botulism to acquire a political edge over Saddam Hussein and allowed them to use said weapons to fight the Iranians (no wonder Iran hates us so much). In Afghanistan we propped up the Taliban with military and monetary support only to cut ties with them when we felt they were too dangerous and ended up incurring their wrath instead. And then we walk back into Afghanistan trying to undo what we did, which resulted in the giant mess we see today.
The list goes on and on (let's not forget this hatred began because we decided to support an Israeli takeover of Palestine). The point I am trying to make here is that people are delusional if they believe this hatred is stemming from a single depiction of Muhammad - no, that is just the spark. For every four innocents Muslims have killed, the U.S. has murdered hundreds more, and for all of the crap we have perpetrated in the Middle East, what they should be doing is not protesting; they should declare war on the entire United States and bomb the shit out of our country. But, of course, that would be foolish, so they resort to terrorist attacks and violent gatherings like these. Has anyone ever stopped to think what it'd feel like if some foreign nation came into the United States, deposed our President/Congress, installed a tyrannical dictator, and enabled them to slaughter us? I imagine the Boston Tea Party would have looked just like that - a tea party, compared to what would happen in this case. If you really lack a shred of empathy, just consider this - Americans, civilians and soldiers alike, DIED to protect this evil.
The truth is, most Americans don't care about Middle Easterners/North Africans. They see them as less than human, and that is why when they read that hundreds or thousands of innocents died by our hands, they just shrug it off, as opposed to when four Americans are killed, they fume with rage. Unfortunately, the Muslim world does not shrug it off. They see in us a much more barbaric nature than we've ever seen in them. It does not matter what excuses we give them as we have stained our hands with too many innocent lives, destroyed the homes of too many children, and ruined the legacy of one of the longest-surviving empires who was unfortunate enough to be stuck between the West and Russia.
Tunisia: Three dead, 28 wounded as Muslims attack U.S. embassy
The count of the dead and wounded comes from this Reuters/DPA report. "Tunisia U.S. Embassy Attack: Protesters Target U.S. Compound In Tunis," from Reuters, September 14
Tunisia: Three dead, 28 wounded as Muslims attack U.S. embassy
The count of the dead and wounded comes from this Reuters/DPA report. "Tunisia U.S. Embassy Attack: Protesters Target U.S. Compound In Tunis," from Reuters, September 14
Tunisia: Three dead, 28 wounded as Muslims attack U.S. embassy
The count of the dead and wounded comes from this Reuters/DPA report. "Tunisia U.S. Embassy Attack: Protesters Target U.S. Compound In Tunis," from Reuters, September 14
Tunisia: Three dead, 28 wounded as Muslims attack U.S. embassy
The count of the dead and wounded comes from this Reuters/DPA report. "Tunisia U.S. Embassy Attack: Protesters Target U.S. Compound In Tunis," from Reuters, September 14
Islam keeps on getting a bad name over and over again. Not only is this violence deplorable, it's a complete slap in the face to the peaceful Muslims as well.
On September 15 2012 08:28 tMomiji wrote: Islam keeps on getting a bad name over and over again. Not only is this violence deplorable, it's a complete slap in the face to the peaceful Muslims as well.
Especially because the religion itself has nothing to do with it.. 0.001% extremists is enought and it's all you see on the news, sensationalism and so on...
I'm not particularly familiar with the details of middle eastern culture and am not aware of an association between islam and collectivism beyond the simple shard belief group it provides like any other religion does. That there is some kind of intrinsic relationship between the two seems to be getting used as an axiom. Where did collectivism enter as the root cause of the developmental limitations in the region?
Following up on/expanding on that, how are they more/less/similarly collectivist compared to some of the farther eastern cultures and what is it in the case of those other collectivist cultures that causes them to not experience/have not experienced the often described economic and intellectual stagnation that the middle east suffers?
I get the impression an excuse to shout out that greed is good was taken without valid relevance to the situation. So the trend has favored practicing islam by following what your cleric tells you about it and many of them practice a couple methods of strengthening their sense of community within the group. What has been cited so far is no more collectivist than many religious sub cultures in the famously individualist west, maybe even a large portion of abrahamic traditions in general. The typical evangelistic fundamentalist american sects of christianity in particular are more or less equal with what was described.
On September 15 2012 08:28 tMomiji wrote: Islam keeps on getting a bad name over and over again. Not only is this violence deplorable, it's a complete slap in the face to the peaceful Muslims as well.
Especially because the religion itself has nothing to do with it.. 0.001% extremists is enought and it's all you see on the news, sensationalism and so on...
Okay a lot more than 0.001% of the population in these areas is upset about this. You're downplaying the issue.
On September 15 2012 08:31 Voltaire wrote: I will be outraged if the creator of the video is sent to jail.
Why? I may not agree with him in the slightest, but from what I've seen it's well within his rights. That others got into a hissy fit and starting attacking people and killing is an altogether separate matter.
edit - Nevermind misread you, read it as "I will be outraged if the creator of the video is not sent to jail.
On September 15 2012 08:28 tMomiji wrote: Islam keeps on getting a bad name over and over again. Not only is this violence deplorable, it's a complete slap in the face to the peaceful Muslims as well.
Especially because the religion itself has nothing to do with it.. 0.001% extremists is enought and it's all you see on the news, sensationalism and so on...
You know Islam IS a strict religion. There is death pentalty in Islam for insulting the religion and leaving it. If believing in Islam, you must also believe in that. Saying that the religion itself had nothing to do with it, is being naive. You dont think its funny that we rarely/never hear about buddhists going on a killing spree because someone spoke their mind about their life style?
Mulims dont tolerate anybody critisicing Islam. Its forbidden. They dont tolerate anything.
Its kinda funny that there always is one guy saying that the "angry fundamentals" only represent a 0.001%. You soon have to reliase that in most islamic nations, they are brought up to be radicals. Not terrorists, if you somehow thought of that. But the strict culture and religion makes them intolerant. There is no other islam then that. Its just a part of their culture and religion.
I have had many conversations with persecuted people from afghan and Iran who fled the country. (met them at work) They said, according to their oppion and experience, that there only exists"moderate muslims" in europe and in the western world. I believe them.
On September 15 2012 07:24 huStl.e wrote: just realised this film was made by someone who claims to be an israeli which now really just makes it a case of who is a bigger asshole.
Now just have to subtly direct the raging crowd towards Israel and the rest can finally relax
On September 15 2012 08:31 Voltaire wrote: I will be outraged if the creator of the video is sent to jail.
He should be sent back to a liberal arts school in order to get a degree in filmmaking.
That movie was terrible in every way possible.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Always a critic. I thought the piece was timeless. Although he most likely will be going to jail for an unrelated reason. He was not supposed to use the internet during his parol and making the movie went against this. This was from his parol from his fraud case where he used the internet to swindle people.
So he most likely will go to jail but for unrelated reasons.
Also jail in solitary would be his safest bet. Poor bastard. Islamic Extremists are crazy fuckers you don't want to pick a fight with.
On September 15 2012 08:31 Voltaire wrote: I will be outraged if the creator of the video is sent to jail.
He should be sent back to a liberal arts school in order to get a degree in filmmaking.
That movie was terrible in every way possible.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Always a critic. I thought the piece was timeless. Although he most likely will be going to jail for an unrelated reason. He was not supposed to use the internet during his parol and making the movie went against this. This was from his parol from his fraud case where he used the internet to swindle people.
So he most likely will go to jail but for unrelated reasons.
Also jail in solitary would be his safest bet. Poor bastard. Islamic Extremists are crazy fuckers you don't want to pick a fight with.
Seeing how Van Gogh was murderd on the streets, and Kurt Westergaard who was nearly killed by a Somali with an Axe I have to agree.
Anyone making fun of Islam should do so under a fake name and make sure he covers his tracks.
On September 15 2012 08:28 tMomiji wrote: Islam keeps on getting a bad name over and over again. Not only is this violence deplorable, it's a complete slap in the face to the peaceful Muslims as well.
Makes you wonder why they would keep following a religion that stands for so much violence and hatred in this world. Why don't just all peaceful Muslims create their new religion with a new name?
So, four colombian peacekeepers wounded in islamist attacks on the Sinai, the german embassy iin Sudan burned, this is just the most random and senseless show of anger and violence possible.
It's quite ironic how this damages the image of Islam a million times more than what that crappy movie could have ever done.
Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours)
you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry.
On September 15 2012 08:28 tMomiji wrote: Islam keeps on getting a bad name over and over again. Not only is this violence deplorable, it's a complete slap in the face to the peaceful Muslims as well.
Makes you wonder why they would keep following a religion that stands for so much violence and hatred in this world. Why don't just all peaceful Muslims create their new religion with a new name?
Because it is a religion that allows the supremacist idea in his foundation, and can be used as a powerful political weapon.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
I can never understand why so many people love to wade in the swamp of relativism in these issues. It's ok if one party is worse than the other. You need to accept where the evidence and facts lead you.
On September 15 2012 08:31 Voltaire wrote: I will be outraged if the creator of the video is sent to jail.
He should be sent back to a liberal arts school in order to get a degree in filmmaking.
That movie was terrible in every way possible.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Always a critic. I thought the piece was timeless. Although he most likely will be going to jail for an unrelated reason. He was not supposed to use the internet during his parol and making the movie went against this. This was from his parol from his fraud case where he used the internet to swindle people.
So he most likely will go to jail but for unrelated reasons.
Also jail in solitary would be his safest bet. Poor bastard. Islamic Extremists are crazy fuckers you don't want to pick a fight with.
I dunno, Israeli's lately are pretty crazy fuckers too but that's hardly broadcasted because they're always the victims. I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims? I almost feel like the jews and muslims switched places and now the entire world persecutes Muslims.... Hell there are once again Jewish only roads, but now instead of it being because of discrimination it is the Jews discriminating! History repeats itself so fast.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
On September 15 2012 03:35 zalz wrote: The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more.
Dunno, I remember methodically destroying a phone booth with my friend for a good hour, probably 19 at the time. We were wasted but Id imagine being a part of a herd can net worse results. Islam itself isnt directly responsible for the amount of cattle, Russia is a good example.
I don't see how Islam isn't responsible for people feeling like they are in a group. How else would so many come up and protest? Aren't they chanting about how they are defending their faith?
Not their literal faith, not defending their books from being stolen by a government, but defending in an abstract sense.
Islam certainly isn't the only belief system that forces people to think in terms of groups rather than individuals. There are plenty of political movements that can be even more group-minded.
Islam actually does have an element of individualism, but it has become unpopular. It rests in the way people are expected to read the quran. There are two major schools of thought, one argues that you should listen to an expert (imam) because he has spend the most time reading the quran, so he understands it best. The other school of thought argues that each individual should read the quran for himself, so you don't risk listening to a flawed imam.
The later school of thought hasn't been very popular of late. It is no surprise that suffi muslims, the one's that focus on the more spiritual aspect of Islam, and interpret the quran more loosely, are prime target for violence by both of the largest sects of Islam (Sunni/Shia).
The more individualist denominations have been getting stomped out for a good long time now. I don't think you can split Islam from the collectivists ideas that are inherent in it.
For example, one of the central ideas is the Ummah, the community of believers. There is a very powerful element of group > individual, and invasive collective thinking.
Perhaps the best examples of collectivism in Islam come from simply observing. Muslims are encouraged to call one another, in an almost Orwellian sense, brother and sister. Strangers, raised with the command to treat complete strangers as brothers and sisters.
Might sound nice, but from this sense of kinship comes the legitimacy to agressively dictate behaviour. Surely, I can't tell a random girl in a bar how to behave, but she is my sister in spirit, so surely I have an obligation to tell her how to behave!
Collectivism in action can simply be observed during the ramadan. A classmate of mine isn't exactly religious, but he adhered to the ramadan, simply because he knew that if he were to eat, he was going to get adressed on it, even by complete strangers. That is in Holland btw.
So, collectivism is a part of Islam, and it certainly isn't a perversion of any kind. In all honesty, I don't blame the religion for it. Considering the time in which it came about, collectivism was the only way to survive in the world. But we aren't living in 600 Arabia, there are more effective ways of organizing society, and a heavy emphasis on individuality is one of those.
Wow! This is perhaps one of the smartest post I've seen on Teamliquid. Well said and intelligently written!
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
I can never understand why so many people love to wade in the swamp of relativism in these issues. It's ok if one party is worse than the other. You need to accept where the evidence and facts lead you.
I personally think that the level offense from that video was just about 0. So yes, one party was worse than the other, because one committed murders and the other one goofed off. If anything, that little video is offensive because of how bad it is. “Announcing ‘I’m Offended’ is basically telling the world you can’t control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.”
Insult and mock everything you want to, I say. And I think one has to be really immature to argue that some things should be off-limits just because some people take shit too seriously. It's their fault.
If a similar video made fun of my "beliefs", I'd either have ignored it completely or I'd mock it right back for being the turd that it is. Honestly I don't know why it is that in 2012 people haven't figured out that there's 7 billion of us on Earth and a shitload of those people have access to the Internet. Folks WILL say things that are offensive to others. It's time people start taking it easy, because almost everyone has learned to deal with it by now.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
His one liner was quite accurate though. Your post was silly.
Make a video about every black stereotype and you'll be fine, absolutely fine. In fact you can post videos on YOUTUBE that border (and sometimes are) hate speech. There are nazi channels on youtube. Some kid from the UK with a swastika in the background and talks about how Great Britain is not Great anymore and needs to purge all the non pure-blood Brits by force...
Did you watch the video anyway? You think that kind of stuff isn't done ALL the time to others? It's all over the internet, parodies making fun of and mocking Christians and Atheists, who just mostly shrug it off or quietly get angry and don't got in a murdering rage like a psychopath.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
My area of Canada?
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
His one liner was quite accurate though. Your post was silly.
Make a video about every black stereotype and you'll be fine, absolutely fine. In fact you can post videos on YOUTUBE that border (and sometimes are) hate speech. There are nazi channels on youtube. Some kid from the UK with a swastika in the background and talks about how Great Britain is not Great anymore and needs to purge all the non pure-blood Brits by force...
Did you watch the video anyway? You think that kind of stuff isn't done ALL the time to others? It's all over the internet, parodies making fun of and mocking Christians and Atheists, who just mostly shrug it off or quietly get angry and don't got in a murdering rage like a psychopath.
On September 15 2012 03:35 zalz wrote: The image of these people ransacking KFC's and other stores is truly amazing.
What on earth, you must wonder, makes these people who are poor enough as it is, turn on stores and other places of employment? They have little enough as it is, but in their rage and collectivist insanity, they need to destroy more.
Dunno, I remember methodically destroying a phone booth with my friend for a good hour, probably 19 at the time. We were wasted but Id imagine being a part of a herd can net worse results. Islam itself isnt directly responsible for the amount of cattle, Russia is a good example.
I don't see how Islam isn't responsible for people feeling like they are in a group. How else would so many come up and protest? Aren't they chanting about how they are defending their faith?
Not their literal faith, not defending their books from being stolen by a government, but defending in an abstract sense.
Islam certainly isn't the only belief system that forces people to think in terms of groups rather than individuals. There are plenty of political movements that can be even more group-minded.
Islam actually does have an element of individualism, but it has become unpopular. It rests in the way people are expected to read the quran. There are two major schools of thought, one argues that you should listen to an expert (imam) because he has spend the most time reading the quran, so he understands it best. The other school of thought argues that each individual should read the quran for himself, so you don't risk listening to a flawed imam.
The later school of thought hasn't been very popular of late. It is no surprise that suffi muslims, the one's that focus on the more spiritual aspect of Islam, and interpret the quran more loosely, are prime target for violence by both of the largest sects of Islam (Sunni/Shia).
The more individualist denominations have been getting stomped out for a good long time now. I don't think you can split Islam from the collectivists ideas that are inherent in it.
For example, one of the central ideas is the Ummah, the community of believers. There is a very powerful element of group > individual, and invasive collective thinking.
Perhaps the best examples of collectivism in Islam come from simply observing. Muslims are encouraged to call one another, in an almost Orwellian sense, brother and sister. Strangers, raised with the command to treat complete strangers as brothers and sisters.
Might sound nice, but from this sense of kinship comes the legitimacy to agressively dictate behaviour. Surely, I can't tell a random girl in a bar how to behave, but she is my sister in spirit, so surely I have an obligation to tell her how to behave!
Collectivism in action can simply be observed during the ramadan. A classmate of mine isn't exactly religious, but he adhered to the ramadan, simply because he knew that if he were to eat, he was going to get adressed on it, even by complete strangers. That is in Holland btw.
So, collectivism is a part of Islam, and it certainly isn't a perversion of any kind. In all honesty, I don't blame the religion for it. Considering the time in which it came about, collectivism was the only way to survive in the world. But we aren't living in 600 Arabia, there are more effective ways of organizing society, and a heavy emphasis on individuality is one of those.
I don't think collectivism is any more to blame than individualism is any more of a solution (ask Native Americans about individualism). Collectivism doesn't necessarily equate to violence or irrationality.
I would say that totalitarian thought inherent in religion (see: Christopher Hitchens), magnified with fundamentalist interpretation (see: Chris Hedges) is the real issue. In this case, even the fundamentally secular individualist can be just as potentially volatile as the collectivist.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
We're talking about stereotyping. What happened in that case you linked and a video of stereotypes of people are completely different, and you know this.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
My area of Canada?
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though.
So mocking people does not = incite hatred.
I would argue that alienizing an entire religion using stereotypical remarks that are extremely off base from the average Muslim would be something which incites hatred. (such as when it has the man slice down the women at random). You may counter argue and say "well this happens" but generalizing an entire group of people for the acts of a minority would be comparable to generalizing all blacks (or hispanics and to a lesser extent whites/asians) for the acts which gangs perpetrate (note gang initiations such as killing at random).
I remember something in my history course, news papers depicting Jews as rats with big noses or black people with big lips. So now it's "ok" to do similar things and generalize and entire group of people into a single collective alien entity? I think not.
feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
We should note this is the argument I put forward(and what we're disagreeing about), not whether anyone would go to jail for expressing said freedom of speech but my point was that in a similar circumstance at least I would be facing a minor lawsuit from a rights group in Canada but there seems to be no contrast whatsoever.
Section 298 prohibits the publication of words or symbols that are likely to insult or injure the reputation of a person as a result of exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. The maximum penalty is two years and where the publisher knows the the defmatory libel is false, five years imprisonment.
For example, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act makes it is a discriminatory practice to communicate, or cause to be so communicated, by telephone or on the Internet, anything that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
etc etc etc, you'd be reaching to say the video didn't contrast any of these points.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours)
you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry.
It's all right. Then I think 1st world countries are wrong on that, sorry. I disagree with you, but glad to hear different opinion.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours)
you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry.
It's all right. Then I think 1st world countries are wrong on that, sorry. I disagree with you, but glad to hear different opinion.
It almost appears you both are arguing for the sake of arguing. Why not expand your points such that you both get a clear image of each disagreement and then try and meet some middle ground.
It is hard to make so many combining arguments also, why not stick with "freedom of speech" as a conduit for discrimination and then after that is solved move to the consequences and where to place the blame. One step at a time.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
My area of Canada?
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though.
So mocking people does not = incite hatred.
I would argue that alienizing an entire religion using stereotypical remarks that are extremely off base from the average Muslim would be something which incites hatred. (such as when it has the man slice down the women at random).
That's a misunderstanding of the law I guess. I don't need a law degree to point at all the cases in which Atheists for instance make fun of stereotypical views of Christians and consistently avoid any form of prosecution. So why won't Christians actually stir shit when they get mocked? Why is it fine?
You may counter argue and say "well this happens" but generalizing an entire group of people for the acts of a minority would be comparable to generalizing all blacks (or hispanics and to a lesser extent whites/asians) for the acts which gangs perpetrate (note gang initiations such as killing at random).
Comedians do this shit all the time. Make jokes about blacks being thieves, Arabs being terrorists, Jews being greedy. That's the spirit of the joke, it doesn't incite hate. Whether the jokes are funny or not is not the question.
I remember something in my history course, news papers depicting Jews as rats with big noses or black people with big lips. So now it's "ok" to do similar things and generalize and entire group of people into a single collective alien entity? I think not.
It is. In this particular case, it was just a joke and it's not meant to say "muslims are like this".
at least I would be facing a minor lawsuit from a rights group in Canada but there seems to be no contrast whatsoever.
You could be outright racist on youtube and you would face no such charges. Your video would be flagged for not being suitable to minors and perhaps removed if you were too forward about it. But you could paint yourself in black, steal bikes, eat fried chicken and watermelons and drink grape juice, you'd just get a lot of down votes.
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
My bad, I guess I'm just not familiar with your area of Canada where they jail their citizens for free speech, apologies.
My area of Canada?
In Canada, advocating genocide[15] or inciting hatred[16] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).
But that video does not advocate or incite hatred. You could interpret "incite hatred" loosely (I assume that's how you justify your statement). Spewing stereotypes does not necessarily incite hatred though.
So mocking people does not = incite hatred.
I would argue that alienizing an entire religion using stereotypical remarks that are extremely off base from the average Muslim would be something which incites hatred. (such as when it has the man slice down the women at random).
That's a misunderstanding of the law I guess. I don't need a law degree to point at all the cases in which Atheists for instance make fun of stereotypical views of Christians and consistently avoid any form of prosecution. So why won't Christians actually stir shit when they get mocked? Why is it fine?
You may counter argue and say "well this happens" but generalizing an entire group of people for the acts of a minority would be comparable to generalizing all blacks (or hispanics and to a lesser extent whites/asians) for the acts which gangs perpetrate (note gang initiations such as killing at random).
Comedians do this shit all the time. Make jokes about blacks being thieves, Arabs being terrorists, Jews being greedy. That's the spirit of the joke, it doesn't incite hate.
I remember something in my history course, news papers depicting Jews as rats with big noses or black people with big lips. So now it's "ok" to do similar things and generalize and entire group of people into a single collective alien entity? I think not.
It is. In this particular case, it was just a joke and it's not meant to say "muslims are like this".
at least I would be facing a minor lawsuit from a rights group in Canada but there seems to be no contrast whatsoever.
You could be outright racist on youtube and you would face no such charges. Your video would be flagged for not being suitable to minors and perhaps removed if you were too forward about it. But you could paint yourself in black, steal bikes, eat fried chicken and watermelons and drink grape juice, you'd just get a lot of down votes.
I apologize but nothing you said has any citations once again. The criminal code in Canada (Which is specifically what we are arguing, the United States has no such law and you can do and say anything there without consequence) makes clear points towards discrimination.
If you think the video was quote "a joke and it's not meant to say ("Muslims are like this")" then I fear you either completely missed what was happening or just simply ignored it. Perhaps you deemed it a joke because it was so poorly done but it was a video funded by Israeli's to paint a very specific image on Muslims as savages. We can clearly see this from the police/burning of the building/how women were treated/random killing of the women.
The difference with comedians and discrimination is that on almost every occasion they're poking fun at the ideology of "racism" by being racist. It isn't far reaching to assume Dave Chappelle doesn't hate black people but he bases a lot of his humor on the ignorance of others. We should use a character like Peter Griffin as an example, Seth uses Peter (similar to Homer Simpson) to place someone who is ignorant in specific situations to show that ignorance. Seth isn't racist when he makes an entire episode on Jewish people being good with money he is trying to show it through the eyes of someone who is blissfully ignorant.
But we can say that point does hold some ground but it remains subjective at best to compare comedians and a screen writer... Especially like that. A good example would be when the Donald Trump roast was happening and "The Situation" made obscenely bad black jokes while the entire show was surrounded by the other comedians making racist jokes. You can see the difference between comedy and ignorance very clearly.
That's a misunderstanding of the law I guess. I don't need a law degree to point at all the cases in which Atheists for instance make fun of stereotypical views of Christians and consistently avoid any form of prosecution. So why won't Christians actually stir shit when they get mocked? Why is it fine?
You should note clearly in the text it makes statements with regards to if the comments are "true" then the law does not hold up. Most atheists argue truths or scientific evidence in a mocking tone but to use them as a specific example is rather poorly thought out because they simply can't fall under the radar. I do see what you're alluding to but if you could find a better point I might follow better.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours)
you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry.
It's all right. Then I think 1st world countries are wrong on that, sorry. I disagree with you, but glad to hear different opinion.
I'm sure you think it's okay to tell someone who has the "wrong" religion that they're going to burn in hell though.
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons.
Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world.
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons.
Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world.
Goodnight !! :D
Never liked hatespeech laws myself, or indeed anything that puts an importance on ethnic/racial/sexual identity ahead of other things. The one thing I could make an exception for is the spreading of lies that are likely to harm. For example if you go around saying that 'Group X are eating children en masse' and its patently untrue and liable to increase tension, then yeah that's something that could be looked at. Even with legitimate news media outlets printing falsehoods, in that this has a negative effect on how people perceive the world/certain groups. Kind of hard to enforce anything like that but the media in the West gets away with a ridiculous amount of lazy/straight-up-wrong reporting, often with an agenda behind it.
In essence that filmaker is the kind of guy I never have to meet to know that he is a grade A prick and an idiot. However being smacked down for being an idiot is all the censure that should be required (except of course if he breached his bail conditions as has been reported as possible)
The sad thing is, the reaction by the Muslim world, the subsequent showing of the disturbances in the mass media, often without reference to the many, many moderate and tolerant Muslims is going to result in yet more anti-Islamic sentiment. This is coming from the genuinely hateful, and the people who are just ignorant of the situation through no real fault of their own.
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons.
Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world.
Goodnight !! :D
Never liked hatespeech laws myself, or indeed anything that puts an importance on ethnic/racial/sexual identity ahead of other things. The one thing I could make an exception for is the spreading of lies that are likely to harm. For example if you go around saying that 'Group X are eating children en masse' and its patently untrue and liable to increase tension, then yeah that's something that could be looked at. Even with legitimate news media outlets printing falsehoods, in that this has a negative effect on how people perceive the world/certain groups. Kind of hard to enforce anything like that but the media in the West gets away with a ridiculous amount of lazy/straight-up-wrong reporting, often with an agenda behind it.
In essence that filmaker is the kind of guy I never have to meet to know that he is a grade A prick and an idiot. However being smacked down for being an idiot is all the censure that should be required (except of course if he breached his bail conditions as has been reported as possible)
The sad thing is, the reaction by the Muslim world, the subsequent showing of the disturbances in the mass media, often without reference to the many, many moderate and tolerant Muslims is going to result in yet more anti-Islamic sentiment. This is coming from the genuinely hateful, and the people who are just ignorant of the situation through no real fault of their own.
I refuse to accept that it is possible to make something like the video/movie he made and not know that people WILL die because of it. Maybe im just better at pattern recognition than most but if I had just seen that video on internet before knowing of any riots or issues my first thought would have been "this is going to get ugly" and im sure that people who did see it before the riots had similer thoughts and if those people are able to realize that than theres no way no one who worked on it realised that but they did it anyway and if you make something knowing it will cause people to die you are at least a little culpable in there deaths.
Looks like the violent protests have flared up in Sydney too. This is just so depressing.
The government should throw these violent Muslims out of our country. If you live in Australia and go on a religious motivated violent riot,showing no appreciation for the right to free speech like this mob, then you do not deserve to live in a Western country. Go away.
On September 15 2012 12:46 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like if I made a video that had every black racist stereotype I would be sent to jail for hate crimes but it seems ok to do it to Muslims?
Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I don't understand, is there something wrong with that statement? Why is it not ok to racially stereotype one people but ok to slur another?
Like always if you can place a valid argument my viewpoint can change (that's how arguments work) but a one line "you think bro" kinda comment makes me wonder... Did you think about this before you typed it at all?
I think the real question here is 'if you made a piss poor camp video that had every black racist stereotype would black people around the world start burning Canadian embassies and kill Canadian diplomats?'
This is insane. I mean racists videos are all over the internet, hell bazillions of sites are dedicated to muslim hatred, yet, a highly comical and idiotic trailer of a movie that doesn't even exists made by a egyptian copt flares up protests all over the world. Feels so unreal...
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons.
Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world.
Goodnight !! :D
Never liked hatespeech laws myself, or indeed anything that puts an importance on ethnic/racial/sexual identity ahead of other things. The one thing I could make an exception for is the spreading of lies that are likely to harm. For example if you go around saying that 'Group X are eating children en masse' and its patently untrue and liable to increase tension, then yeah that's something that could be looked at. Even with legitimate news media outlets printing falsehoods, in that this has a negative effect on how people perceive the world/certain groups. Kind of hard to enforce anything like that but the media in the West gets away with a ridiculous amount of lazy/straight-up-wrong reporting, often with an agenda behind it.
In essence that filmaker is the kind of guy I never have to meet to know that he is a grade A prick and an idiot. However being smacked down for being an idiot is all the censure that should be required (except of course if he breached his bail conditions as has been reported as possible)
The sad thing is, the reaction by the Muslim world, the subsequent showing of the disturbances in the mass media, often without reference to the many, many moderate and tolerant Muslims is going to result in yet more anti-Islamic sentiment. This is coming from the genuinely hateful, and the people who are just ignorant of the situation through no real fault of their own.
I refuse to accept that it is possible to make something like the video/movie he made and not know that people WILL die because of it. Maybe im just better at pattern recognition than most but if I had just seen that video on internet before knowing of any riots or issues my first thought would have been "this is going to get ugly" and im sure that people who did see it before the riots had similer thoughts and if those people are able to realize that than theres no way no one who worked on it realised that but they did it anyway and if you make something knowing it will cause people to die you are at least a little culpable in there deaths.
The average person with any knowledge of the international news of the past few years would know that movie was going to have an effect along these lines. Not quite so substantial perhaps, but the basic premise of at least some protests would be certain.
Making the case that this is a reason to not make such media is a different and not nearly so self evident matter, as the emerging trend for intentionally 'offensive' islamic protests of media counter protests can attest.
Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
On September 15 2012 12:11 Orek wrote: Everyone has different perspective. To me, what is acceptable and unacceptable are:
Acceptable 1. Criticizing another religion or group of people. 2. Peacefully demonstrating on the streets or in front of foreign embassies.
Unacceptable 1. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." 2. Resorting to violence to show how upset you are about what another country or a man in the country did.
Both sides crossed the line.
yeah, and some of them are wrong (like yours)
you should be able to criticize any religion without being fearful for your life. Purposefully offending people of another religion under the flag of "freedom of speech." does not fall under unacceptable in 1st world countries, sorry.
The United States is obviously tautologically a First World country, but it is not all, nor most, nor even some First World countries. It is one country.
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
There are a lot of people on such protests who are not citizens, some of them are even illegal immigrants.
Banning extreme religious teachings isn't really an option I think, as it is itself a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More proper action would be instituting harsh punishments for public calls to commit violence and public justification of obviously criminal actions.
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
There are a lot of people on such protests who are not citizens, some of them are even illegal immigrants.
Banning extreme religious teachings isn't really an option I think, as it is itself a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More proper action would be instituting harsh punishments for public calls to commit violence and public justification of obviously criminal actions.
its already this way but it's really hard to catch these people and eventho they actively track them down, they will always only catch a couple for a dozen of them.
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
There are a lot of people on such protests who are not citizens, some of them are even illegal immigrants.
Banning extreme religious teachings isn't really an option I think, as it is itself a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More proper action would be instituting harsh punishments for public calls to commit violence and public justification of obviously criminal actions.
its already this way but it's really hard to catch these people and eventho they actively track them down, they will always only catch a couple for a dozen of them.
They just don't try hard enough to catch them. It's pretty easy when there are people who come to public places holding posters with calls to behead people (or smth. else, beheading is just on the photo on this page) or shouting such calls. You only have to record them on video then arrest them and throw in jail for a few years. Do it a few times and such things won't happen so often anymore.
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
There are a lot of people on such protests who are not citizens, some of them are even illegal immigrants.
Banning extreme religious teachings isn't really an option I think, as it is itself a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More proper action would be instituting harsh punishments for public calls to commit violence and public justification of obviously criminal actions.
its already this way but it's really hard to catch these people and eventho they actively track them down, they will always only catch a couple for a dozen of them.
They just don't try hard enough to catch them. It's pretty easy when there are people who come to public places holding with a calls to behead people (or smth. else, beheading is just on the photo on this page) or shout such calls. You only have to record them on video then arrest them and throw in jail for a few years. Do it a few times and such things won't happen so often anymore.
And if jail was unfeasible due to the large numbers of violent protesters, we could impose heavy fines for such crimes, maybe 20,000 USD for the first offence, then 50,000, then a jail term, and so on. Make the punishments heavy enough that they won't dare do it again.
I wonder if it's possible for legal procedures to be tweaked in such a way so that large numbers of violent protesters can be charged extremely swiftly (say, 10,000 people in a couple of months). That money will help to fund prevention of further such incidents.
Also, I quote the guy before me
On September 15 2012 17:45 ahappystar wrote: I think the real question here is 'if you made a piss poor camp video that had every black racist stereotype would black people around the world start burning Canadian embassies and kill Canadian diplomats?'
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
There are a lot of people on such protests who are not citizens, some of them are even illegal immigrants.
Banning extreme religious teachings isn't really an option I think, as it is itself a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More proper action would be instituting harsh punishments for public calls to commit violence and public justification of obviously criminal actions.
its already this way but it's really hard to catch these people and eventho they actively track them down, they will always only catch a couple for a dozen of them.
They just don't try hard enough to catch them. It's pretty easy when there are people who come to public places holding with a calls to behead people (or smth. else, beheading is just on the photo on this page) or shout such calls. You only have to record them on video then arrest them and throw in jail for a few years. Do it a few times and such things won't happen so often anymore.
And if jail was unfeasible due to the large numbers of violent protesters, we could impose heavy fines for such crimes, maybe 20,000 USD for the first offence, then 50,000, then a jail term, and so on. Make the punishments heavy enough that they won't dare do it again.
I wonder if it's possible for legal procedures to be tweaked in such a way so that large numbers of violent protesters can be charged extremely swiftly (say, 10,000 people in a couple of months). That money will help to fund prevention of further such incidents.
On September 15 2012 17:45 ahappystar wrote: I think the real question here is 'if you made a piss poor camp video that had every black racist stereotype would black people around the world start burning Canadian embassies and kill Canadian diplomats?'
Beeing black isn't a religious software, it's a physical trait. Outdated/primitiv mental softwares tend to turn people nuts.
On September 15 2012 18:25 Evilmystic wrote: Sure not much can be done about people protesting and calling for violence in Middle East and North Africa. But I really think people who explicitly state their refusal to accept our common values, such as freedom of speech, have no place in the Western world and should be extradited back to their home countries.
Yeah but when they're born in western countries and grew up there, you just can't do that. It's more about banning any extreme religious teaching. And that's really hard to do.
There are a lot of people on such protests who are not citizens, some of them are even illegal immigrants.
Banning extreme religious teachings isn't really an option I think, as it is itself a violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. More proper action would be instituting harsh punishments for public calls to commit violence and public justification of obviously criminal actions.
its already this way but it's really hard to catch these people and eventho they actively track them down, they will always only catch a couple for a dozen of them.
They just don't try hard enough to catch them. It's pretty easy when there are people who come to public places holding with a calls to behead people (or smth. else, beheading is just on the photo on this page) or shout such calls. You only have to record them on video then arrest them and throw in jail for a few years. Do it a few times and such things won't happen so often anymore.
And if jail was unfeasible due to the large numbers of violent protesters, we could impose heavy fines for such crimes, maybe 20,000 USD for the first offence, then 50,000, then a jail term, and so on. Make the punishments heavy enough that they won't dare do it again.
I wonder if it's possible for legal procedures to be tweaked in such a way so that large numbers of violent protesters can be charged extremely swiftly (say, 10,000 people in a couple of months). That money will help to fund prevention of further such incidents.
On September 15 2012 17:45 ahappystar wrote: I think the real question here is 'if you made a piss poor camp video that had every black racist stereotype would black people around the world start burning Canadian embassies and kill Canadian diplomats?'
I think you're too soft with the 20,000$ fine or imprisonment of 10,000 people for protesting
It's funny how the same people who say that freedom of speech should allow you to make such movies are the same that ask all the protesters to be imprisonned, fined or I don't know what.
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I'm not supporting these idiots and their medieval beliefs and thought, and I agree this is completely ridiculous, but you guys should be a bit consistent. And the fact some extremists killed this ambassador doesn't mean all the protesters and protests are violent.
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's funny how the same people who say that freedom of speech should allow you to make such movies are the same that ask all the protesters to be imprisonned, fined or I don't know what.
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I'm not supporting these idiots and their medieval beliefs and thought, and I agree this is completely ridiculous, but you guys should be a bit consistent. And the fact some extremists killed this ambassador doesn't mean all the protesters and protests are violent.
We're talking about violent protesters. As long as they are peaceful, it's fine. However, once people start showing violence, arrest them immediately.
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's funny how the same people who say that freedom of speech should allow you to make such movies are the same that ask all the protesters to be imprisonned, fined or I don't know what.
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I'm not supporting these idiots and their medieval beliefs and thought, and I agree this is completely ridiculous, but you guys should be a bit consistent. And the fact some extremists killed this ambassador doesn't mean all the protesters and protests are violent.
Where did I say that? Nobody seems to be saying anything of the sort.
The issue isn't that they are protesting, it is that they are getting violent and start to murder people.
Hell, they can protest till judgement day for all I care, but if they raise a fist, they cross the line. Nobody gets to enforce his opinion with his fists.
So, the argument is entirely consistent. The problem is the violence, not them protesting.
Edit: Just because you can interpret a law in some way does not mean it's actually used that way in our justice system. In Canada, you have to be saying some damn disgusting shit for it to be considered hate speech. Especially in an humorous setting, joking around with stereotypes won't get you in trouble.
I think you're using "joking around" very loosely here and you should tread more carefully with that word. It is getting late so I will be done with this but I'd just simply like to leave with the fact that all law is subjective and it can change based on bias and viewpoints but I would feel rather comfortable (and a friend of mine who I happened to have a similar discussion today with during lunch on campus, he studies law, would also feel comfortable) being the prosecutor on such a case because there are so many case studies and examples (mainly from the black side of the table through the 40's 70's) where you can draw comparisons.
Any who all I said was that we, as a people, are alienizing Islam and Muslims horrendously while doing similar things to different factions would exploit yourself to rage and anger from the entire world.
Goodnight !! :D
Never liked hatespeech laws myself, or indeed anything that puts an importance on ethnic/racial/sexual identity ahead of other things. The one thing I could make an exception for is the spreading of lies that are likely to harm. For example if you go around saying that 'Group X are eating children en masse' and its patently untrue and liable to increase tension, then yeah that's something that could be looked at. Even with legitimate news media outlets printing falsehoods, in that this has a negative effect on how people perceive the world/certain groups. Kind of hard to enforce anything like that but the media in the West gets away with a ridiculous amount of lazy/straight-up-wrong reporting, often with an agenda behind it.
In essence that filmaker is the kind of guy I never have to meet to know that he is a grade A prick and an idiot. However being smacked down for being an idiot is all the censure that should be required (except of course if he breached his bail conditions as has been reported as possible)
The sad thing is, the reaction by the Muslim world, the subsequent showing of the disturbances in the mass media, often without reference to the many, many moderate and tolerant Muslims is going to result in yet more anti-Islamic sentiment. This is coming from the genuinely hateful, and the people who are just ignorant of the situation through no real fault of their own.
You talk about the large segment of muslims who are moderate, but fact is they are always silent when the killing happens. there were no large scale protests after islamic Jihad attacks which claimed thousands of lives. There are large scale protests when a random idiot makes a film about their prophet.
Fact of the matter is there is no way to know if the masses of muslims disagree with the attacks. Considering the support of goverments of Egypts and Sudan for the protests I would doubt very much so.
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's funny how the same people who say that freedom of speech should allow you to make such movies are the same that ask all the protesters to be imprisonned, fined or I don't know what.
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I'm not supporting these idiots and their medieval beliefs and thought, and I agree this is completely ridiculous, but you guys should be a bit consistent. And the fact some extremists killed this ambassador doesn't mean all the protesters and protests are violent.
They were talking about violent protestors though, not just protestors. Nobody was saying all the peaceful protestors should be scooped up and fined because what they're doing is perfectly legal.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
So blame the US, not saddam continuing to avoid inspections. Good one bro.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
Would those sanctions have anything to do with them attacking another muslim country?
Also, 500.000 is one of those famous leftie-numbers, based entirely on the total numbers of deaths, regardless of the cause of death.
Post-Iraq war, the left started to chalk up literally every death in Iraq to the US occupation. Guy got hit by a car? US.
Guy got a heart attack? US.
Guy shoots himself? US.
Guy gets cancer? US.
I think the record is still held by some guy on the forum that claimed the US had killed more people than the total population of Iraq.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
So blame the US, not saddam continuing to avoid inspections. Good one bro.
Would be nice if you didn't flip flop and edit your post to something even more ridiculous after discovering that your previous statement was completely wrong.Since you previous asked for a source here it is with a little summary of the report.
Children between the ages 0-5 killed by US sanctions from 1990-1998 (8 years) estimate from a minimum of 100,000 to 500,000. The most correct estimate according to this report is that 227,000 children died as a direct cause of the sanctions by analyzing pre-sanctions and post-sanctions deaths.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
So blame the US, not saddam continuing to avoid inspections. Good one bro.
Would be nice if you didn't flip flop and edit your post to something even more ridiculous after discovering that your previous statement was completely wrong.Since you previous asked for a source here it is with a little summary of the report.
Children between the ages 0-5 killed by US sanctions from 1990-1998 (8 years) estimate from a minimum of 100,000 to 500,000. The most correct estimate according to this report is that 227,000 children died as a direct cause of the sanctions by analyzing pre-sanctions and post-sanctions deaths.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
So blame the US, not saddam continuing to avoid inspections. Good one bro.
Would be nice if you didn't flip flop and edit your post to something even more ridiculous after discovering that your previous statement was completely wrong.Since you previous asked for a source here it is with a little summary of the report.
Children between the ages 0-5 killed by US sanctions from 1990-1998 (8 years) estimate from a minimum of 100,000 to 500,000. The most correct estimate according to this report is that 227,000 children died as a direct cause of the sanctions by analyzing pre-sanctions and post-sanctions deaths.
The Oil-for-Food Programme (OFF), established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986)[1] was established with the stated intent to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to boost its military capabilities.
The fact Iraq ( read Saddam ) cheated is not their fault. the sanctions were meant to cripple their army. Not with the aim of killing kids. Not to mention it was a UN endorsed program, not just the US.
the US did not shoot, or starve kids. Also you randomly took the highest number of poossible deaths, not taking into account that half of it would be more appropiate.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
In iraq alone, american sanctions killed 500,000 children in 10 years......then again america is not muslims so you can probably disregard that fact and disassociate that from their religion.
Would those sanctions have anything to do with them attacking another muslim country?
Also, 500.000 is one of those famous leftie-numbers, based entirely on the total numbers of deaths, regardless of the cause of death.
Post-Iraq war, the left started to chalk up literally every death in Iraq to the US occupation. Guy got hit by a car? US.
Guy got a heart attack? US.
Guy shoots himself? US.
Guy gets cancer? US.
I think the record is still held by some guy on the forum that claimed the US had killed more people than the total population of Iraq.
To say that the US is the direct cause of every death is naive and I would agree but to go over the top and make facetious tones with the tone that the US isn't usually to blame is another.
This is highly off topic though so let's try to move back around but there is no doubt Iraq is decades behind what it could have been because of the US occupation.
The earlier discussion seemed to be a mostly reasonable tangent from the assassination and the protest that provided cover for it. This "who is worst" pissing contest between US middle eastern policy, middle eastern dictators, and religious fanatics past and present is a bit ridiculous.
On September 15 2012 22:24 Irrelevant Label wrote: The earlier discussion seemed to be a mostly reasonable tangent from the assassination and the protest that provided cover for it. This "who is worst" pissing contest between US middle eastern policy, middle eastern dictators, and religious fanatics past and present is a bit ridiculous.
Because the root of the situation stems from the issues you mentioned above, thus a discussion of this nature is bound to lead to aforementioned topics.
On September 12 2012 19:57 Eisregen wrote: OK let's look at the facts:
Online film about islam, also equalling it with "cancer" Anyone surprised some religious dudes snapped? -No, not really.
Man, one should know, that things like this can happen, especially as simple-minded believers are ppl you won't be able to discuss anything with. They will just break out in anger and kill you.
Christianity gets bashed all the time, no rockets fired at people.
Fact of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism ( justified, or as in this case rubbish)
Muhammed cartoons > Riots Muhammed movie > riots African teddy bear named muhammed > Riots
Such a downright violent religion, and people wonder why its known as the religion of violence and opression
...ever hear of the Inquisition? Islam now is equivalent to Catholocism then.
Put the Numbers in Perspective
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined
in 35 years of Inquisition killed 5000. On 9-11 alone 3000 died. Anymore silly comparisons?
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's funny how the same people who say that freedom of speech should allow you to make such movies are the same that ask all the protesters to be imprisonned, fined or I don't know what.
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I'm not supporting these idiots and their medieval beliefs and thought, and I agree this is completely ridiculous, but you guys should be a bit consistent. And the fact some extremists killed this ambassador doesn't mean all the protesters and protests are violent.
We've been specifically speaking about people who either act violently or make explicit calls in support of violent actions (like posters with calls to behead people). Everyone else is free to protest in any way they want.
On September 15 2012 22:24 Irrelevant Label wrote: The earlier discussion seemed to be a mostly reasonable tangent from the assassination and the protest that provided cover for it. This "who is worst" pissing contest between US middle eastern policy, middle eastern dictators, and religious fanatics past and present is a bit ridiculous.
Because the root of the situation stems from the issues you mentioned above, thus a discussion of this nature is bound to lead to aforementioned topics.
The root of the situation stems from the NATO 'democracy at gunpoint' implemented in the region during the last few years and Libya being turned into a tribal state run by tribes and islamic fundamentalists
On September 15 2012 22:24 Irrelevant Label wrote: The earlier discussion seemed to be a mostly reasonable tangent from the assassination and the protest that provided cover for it. This "who is worst" pissing contest between US middle eastern policy, middle eastern dictators, and religious fanatics past and present is a bit ridiculous.
Because the root of the situation stems from the issues you mentioned above, thus a discussion of this nature is bound to lead to aforementioned topics.
The root of the situation stems from the NATO 'democracy at gunpoint' implemented in the region during the last few years and Libya being turned into a tribal state run by tribes and islamic fundamentalists
It's pretty unreasonable to say that NATO is at fault for this and not Gaddafi who systematically oppressed everyone who opposed his dictatorship for forty years.
On September 15 2012 22:24 Irrelevant Label wrote: The earlier discussion seemed to be a mostly reasonable tangent from the assassination and the protest that provided cover for it. This "who is worst" pissing contest between US middle eastern policy, middle eastern dictators, and religious fanatics past and present is a bit ridiculous.
Because the root of the situation stems from the issues you mentioned above, thus a discussion of this nature is bound to lead to aforementioned topics.
The root of the situation stems from the NATO 'democracy at gunpoint' implemented in the region during the last few years and Libya being turned into a tribal state run by tribes and islamic fundamentalists
It's pretty unreasonable to say that NATO is at fault for this and not Gaddafi who systematically oppressed everyone who opposed his dictatorship for forty years.
He suppressed islamic fundamentalists and crazy tribes. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa. I don't recall jihadist burning down embassies while he was in power. EDIT: In retrospect, alot of the people condemning the embassy attack in Libya were all for the storming of a certain Ecuadorian embassy. This is what happens when you have double standards and no respect for international law, or the integrity of a sovereign state
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
This thread is becoming less about discussing and providing data to back claims and more about "Well I have this opinion I made up through my years of researching nothing on the topic... It is now going to be provided as factual".
How about we start providing data to claims like "Can expect similar events to continue to rise in both EU and nations like Australia/Canada." or "Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful." or even "act of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism". As you can see it is both sides of the fence and it is really degrading the quality of discussion.
Let's please start citing or arguing facts and stop making assumptions about an entire group of people.
On September 16 2012 01:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: Sudan rejects US request to send marines to Sudan to protect the US embassy, a state news agency says
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight minority, have turned violent.
So, again, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
On September 16 2012 01:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote: This thread is becoming less about discussing and providing data to back claims and more about "Well I have this opinion I made up through my years of researching nothing on the topic... It is now going to be provided as factual".
How about we start providing data to claims like "Can expect similar events to continue to rise in both EU and nations like Australia/Canada." or "Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful." or even "act of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism". As you can see it is both sides of the fence and it is really degrading the quality of discussion.
Let's please start citing or arguing facts and stop making assumptions about an entire group of people.
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
On September 16 2012 01:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote: This thread is becoming less about discussing and providing data to back claims and more about "Well I have this opinion I made up through my years of researching nothing on the topic... It is now going to be provided as factual".
How about we start providing data to claims like "Can expect similar events to continue to rise in both EU and nations like Australia/Canada." or "Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful." or even "act of the matter is Islam is extremly intolerant and paranoid about critisism". As you can see it is both sides of the fence and it is really degrading the quality of discussion.
Let's please start citing or arguing facts and stop making assumptions about an entire group of people.
On September 16 2012 01:10 ImFromPortugal wrote: Sudan rejects US request to send marines to Sudan to protect the US embassy, a state news agency says
I think it has more than the video imo (this is just speculation) but after 10 years of occupation and ddeath surrounding the Middle East it is no surprise to me that the flood gates over flowed. I wouldn't say this particular event was anything more than a catalyst to growing distaste for Americas (and NATO's) foreign policy.
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
On campus we burned a couch (house tradition) at the start of the year for new people. It was from The Brick. I guess that might be a serious crime to by that standard, perhaps we should get jail time. We could have been sending a message to the company saying "We want better couches!"
Burning a symbol should equate with freedom of speech, you're sending a message not killing a person. Saying "you should go to jail" for burning a flag is absolutely ridiculous.
Oh and for everyone losing shit about a riot.
Even the Western World riots. I wonder if anyone can put together why this violent riot that ensued millions (if not a billion, my numbers are a bit foggy) worth of dmg to a place happened.
I'll give you a hint, it was really really fucking stupid.
So who are we to condemn violent riots breaking out over religion when we riot over fucking hockey games.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight minority, have turned violent.
So, again, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
No big riots / violence in Australia, Amirite.
Reminds me of those peaceful muslims in peaceful france, where they attacked people / cars / police after a criminal killed himself, peacefully no doubt.
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
Really? A flag is a piece of coloured sheet on which some "patriots" put their ego and their pride when they play at which country has the biggest dick. It's a symbol. You burn a flag, it just means you are very angry against that country. Great.
Personally I don't care and I hardly see how burning a symbol is a serious offense or "significant violence".
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
Really? A flag is a piece of coloured sheet on which some "patriots" put their ego and their pride when they play at which country has the biggest dick. It's a symbol. You burn a flag, it just means you are very angry against that country. Great.
Personally I don't care and I hardly see how burning a symbol is a serious offense or "significant violence".
Patriots are often the first to argue freedom of speech and then begin to contradict themselves by going "well as long as it isn't something I care about!" like the Flag. ^^
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight minority, have turned violent.
So, again, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
No big riots / violence in Australia, Amirite.
Reminds me of those peaceful muslims in peaceful france, where they attacked people / cars / police after a criminal killed himself, peacefully no doubt.
1- That's my point: if you care so much about freedom of speech, you should let those people claim whatever they want. INcluding that people who offend their invisible man sshould be beheaded. It's not even my opinion, I don't think you should have the right to say such thing, but in the other hand, I don't think you should ahve the right to make such film. So I just ask for consistency. If you can make hate films, then you should be able to make hate demos.
2- France riots had NOTHING to do with "muslims". It has to do with poor people living in ghettos. There were black people, white people, arabs, atheists, muslims, everything.
The fact that in France, most poor people happen, for historical reasons, to be muslims doesn't constitute any causality rapport between those riots and their religion.
That's the problem with people. They don't make the difference between causality and correlation. "Oh those muslims burn cars... Hate Muslims!" Hey, what about "Oh those poor people with no life prospect, victim of racism every day of their life and living in shitty ghettos burn cars... Hate the poors!"? Oh, it doesn't sound as good.
I can assure you that my Muslim cousins had nothing to do with the riots. Should we hate them because it happens that a lot of people involved in the riot believe in the same god than them?
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
Really? A flag is a piece of coloured sheet on which some "patriots" put their ego and their pride when they play at which country has the biggest dick. It's a symbol. You burn a flag, it just means you are very angry against that country. Great.
Personally I don't care and I hardly see how burning a symbol is a serious offense or "significant violence".
I didn't say burning a flag is "significantly violent", but it is my personal opinion that burning a flag is a serious offence. It's fine if you guys don't share my opinion though.
On September 16 2012 01:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:17 fluidin wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
Really? A flag is a piece of coloured sheet on which some "patriots" put their ego and their pride when they play at which country has the biggest dick. It's a symbol. You burn a flag, it just means you are very angry against that country. Great.
Personally I don't care and I hardly see how burning a symbol is a serious offense or "significant violence".
I didn't say burning a flag is "significantly violent", but it is my personal opinion that burning a flag is a serious offence. It's fine if you guys don't share my opinion though.
Good so as long as it's not against the law, people should be allowed to burn flags. And since we agree these protest are in majority non violent, i guess it's all right due to the holy freedom of speech.
Once again, my claim is simple. If you rant against those demos, then you should also rant against this movie.
On September 16 2012 01:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:17 fluidin wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:27 Silidons wrote:
On September 15 2012 20:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If you can make a racist movie because freedom of speech is holy ground, you can make a demo because you don't like whatever you don't like. Mind you, 99,99% of those people are absolutely peaceful.
I wonder how many people support these actions though? If not, where the fuck is the other 1.5 billion people protesting in rage of what people of their religion did? How come all these 1% (or in your case, .01%) always have the big riots? Why can't just 2% of peaceful Muslims protest and drown the violent ones out?
Can you answer that question?
I don't get the question but it's very simple.
There haven't been any significance violence in Western countrie's demos (from what I know) -and no, burning a flag or spitting on police is not "significant violence". So if you guys care so much about freedom of speech, you shouldn't talk about fining or arresting those people. They are not associated to the fundamentalists who killed that embassador even if they protest for the same reasons. There are simply no "big riots" except in Lybia / Egypt etc... where salafist, who, even there, are probably a slight monrity, have turned violent.
So, afain, if you want to be consistent, stop raging and talk of fining / putting in jail all those protesters, because somewhere in an other country, some people protesting for the same cause have turned violent.
So that you know, the embassador has been killed by an extremely small crowd.
And again, I think those protests are fucking retarded. The fact that someone has actually be killed for such a ridiculous reason is beyond absurd.
Once again, not one person raged and said to "fine and put in jail all these protesters." We're saying to impose heavier sentences on violent protesters, because it's against the law. Peaceful demonstration is legal, violence is not. And this law will apply to all following similar cases, not just against muslims, but also for any violent demonstrators of any race or religion in the future.
And as far as I'm concerned, maybe it isn't the same for all, burning of a recognized country's flag counts as a serious crime and should carry a heavy penalty, like a jail term.
Really? A flag is a piece of coloured sheet on which some "patriots" put their ego and their pride when they play at which country has the biggest dick. It's a symbol. You burn a flag, it just means you are very angry against that country. Great.
Personally I don't care and I hardly see how burning a symbol is a serious offense or "significant violence".
I didn't say burning a flag is "significantly violent", but it is my personal opinion that burning a flag is a serious offence. It's fine if you guys don't share my opinion though.
There is a very simple rule in philosophy when it comes to contradictions A & -A can't exist. You can't argue for freedom of speech and then try and stifle a form of speech through actions. It is a severe contradiction that just shouldn't happen. I do agree it is fine if we don't agree with you though, but perhaps before you get into a discussion that heavily ties around the idea of freedom of speech you don't advocate that freedom and then attempt to contradict it because of personal bias or ridiculous nationalism/patriotism.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
chill out bro
I'm just stating that this is causing more hate. What did you expect?
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
chill out bro
I'm just stating that this is causing more hate. What did you expect?
I expect people to be clever and not make generalization about "Muslims" because some ambassador got killed by nutcases in Benghazi.
But that's too much to ask. You are right, it just feed the hate and our far right fascist leaders will be happy to blame the "Muslims" and get the vote of people who mix up everything. Happy day for Wilder, Le Pen, the Tea Party and the other far right fuckers.
I also expect people to realize that what is "causing more hate" in the first place is this retarded video. But nobody cares about that. Idiots burning flags is more important.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
On September 16 2012 01:57 Biff The Understudy wrote: I also expect people to realize that what is "causing more hate" in the first place is this retarded video. But nobody cares about that. Idiots burning flags is more important.
And that's right. There is freedom of expression, and if you get offended by something it doesn't give you rights to go violent, break stuff and kill people. Idiots burning flags are only important because they explicitly support fanatics who actually kill people.
On September 16 2012 02:00 exog wrote: If we assume that all religions are violent, still muslims make the most violence on civilians..
They're also the most prosecuted and discriminated against. There might be a correlation there but that is just an assumption I've made, I have no backing for it.
Back someone into a corner for long enough they'll bite at any sign of danger, that is how I think Muslims are feeling.
Also
According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, in 2010, the number of American Muslims involved in terrorist acts dropped by more than half compared to 2009. More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall.
Interesting statement, this doesn't directly relate to your post (the link) but it goes to show Muslims aren't and always the terrorists and have been in the decline.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Last time I checked Breivik was 1 person. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure.
You're not looking at the situation at hand (probably on purpose) because it's obvious that you're a sympathizer. What the poster said before you is correct - wherever the WBC goes, there is a MUCH larger opposition protest there. Why is this NEVER seen in the Muslim world? The only reason that one can think of, seeing as how there are over 1.5b Muslims, is that a large majority of Muslims are okay with it. They might not be violent themselves, but they are fine with others doing it. I'm not exactly sure how this .01% is able to expand themselves across multiple countries and continents, that's another fallacy I'd love to have explained to me.
On September 16 2012 02:00 exog wrote: If we assume that all religions are violent, still muslims make the most violence on civilians..
They're also the most prosecuted and discriminated against. There might be a correlation there but that is just an assumption I've made, I have no backing for it.
Back someone into a corner for long enough they'll bite at any sign of danger, that is how I think Muslims are feeling.
According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, in 2010, the number of American Muslims involved in terrorist acts dropped by more than half compared to 2009. More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall.
Interesting statement, this doesn't directly relate to your post (the link) but it goes to show Muslims aren't and always the terrorists and have been in the decline.
Edit: More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall. is a HUGE blanket statement and should only be taken at face value. All terrorist acts by Muslims are in the name of Allah. That is an entirely different type of terrorism.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
chill out bro
I'm just stating that this is causing more hate. What did you expect?
I expect people to be clever and not make generalization about "Muslims" because some ambassador got killed by nutcases in Benghazi.
But that's too much to ask. You are right, it just feed the hate and our far right fascist leaders will be happy to blame the "Muslims" and get the vote of people who mix up everything. Happy day for Wilder, Le Pen, the Tea Party and the other far right fuckers.
I also expect people to realize that what is "causing more hate" in the first place is this retarded video. But nobody cares about that. Idiots burning flags is more important.
Whats causing more hate is the extremist muslims over reacting and wanting blood for every little fucking thing. Yes it's not most Muslims opinions but it seems to happen every time. A cartoon of their prophet? Riots death threats etc. A video about hating them, Go kill the ambassador! And then these same extremists wonder why people are hating muslims... If every joke/crappy hate video directed your way turns into you wanting blood/rioting... well guess what people aren't going to like you very much... Seriously, grow a pair and ignore the stupid video, instead of giving people reasons to make more videos.
Again I realize not all muslims are like that, but their religion does actually promote it. Mixed with the fact at how often these extremists over react to little things, you have to admit its getting harder and harder to separate the extremists...
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Last time I checked Breivik was 1 person. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm not sure.
You're not looking at the situation at hand (probably on purpose) because it's obvious that you're a sympathizer. What the poster said before you is correct - wherever the WBC goes, there is a MUCH larger opposition protest there. Why is this NEVER seen in the Muslim world? The only reason that one can think of, seeing as how there are over 1.5b Muslims, is that a large majority of Muslims are okay with it. They might not be violent themselves, but they are fine with others doing it. I'm not exactly sure how this .01% is able to expand themselves across multiple countries and continents, that's another fallacy I'd love to have explained to me.
On September 16 2012 02:00 exog wrote: If we assume that all religions are violent, still muslims make the most violence on civilians..
They're also the most prosecuted and discriminated against. There might be a correlation there but that is just an assumption I've made, I have no backing for it.
Back someone into a corner for long enough they'll bite at any sign of danger, that is how I think Muslims are feeling.
Also
According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, in 2010, the number of American Muslims involved in terrorist acts dropped by more than half compared to 2009. More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall.
Interesting statement, this doesn't directly relate to your post (the link) but it goes to show Muslims aren't and always the terrorists and have been in the decline.
Edit: More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall. is a HUGE blanket statement and should only be taken at face value. All terrorist acts by Muslims are in the name of Allah. That is an entirely different type of terrorism.
Also a lot of "terrorist attacks" are named terrorist attacks but are not forms of terrorism at all, almost every attack in the Middle East on Americans is a form of asymmetrical warfare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare (this is very broad btw, a lot of reading).
A lot of "terrorist acts by Muslims" are not in the name of Allah as much as they are in the name of defending their land. Put any name to it as a rallying cause most just feel prosecuted. Wouldn't you feel rather prosecuted if your homeland was invaded by foreigners mainly with regards to oil and they've been there for a decade? I think so, I know I wouldn't be very hesitant in defending my land.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
chill out bro
I'm just stating that this is causing more hate. What did you expect?
I expect people to be clever and not make generalization about "Muslims" because some ambassador got killed by nutcases in Benghazi.
But that's too much to ask. You are right, it just feed the hate and our far right fascist leaders will be happy to blame the "Muslims" and get the vote of people who mix up everything. Happy day for Wilder, Le Pen, the Tea Party and the other far right fuckers.
I also expect people to realize that what is "causing more hate" in the first place is this retarded video. But nobody cares about that. Idiots burning flags is more important.
I dont expect that because people aren;t that smart. I hope there will be some damage control but in general people don;'t really enjoy muslim actions and influence.
On September 16 2012 02:00 exog wrote: If we assume that all religions are violent, still muslims make the most violence on civilians..
They're also the most prosecuted and discriminated against. There might be a correlation there but that is just an assumption I've made, I have no backing for it.
Back someone into a corner for long enough they'll bite at any sign of danger, that is how I think Muslims are feeling.
According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, in 2010, the number of American Muslims involved in terrorist acts dropped by more than half compared to 2009. More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall.
Interesting statement, this doesn't directly relate to your post (the link) but it goes to show Muslims aren't and always the terrorists and have been in the decline.
Stop making things up, Muslims are not even close to the most prosecuted religious group.
Where are the North Korean suicide bombers. Burmese ones, Tha ones? Zimabwean ones?
What about the prosecuted Christians who live in Islamic Apartheid states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, how come they dont blow stuff up in the name of jesus.
Islam is fine. Violence in the name of Allah is not fine. Do we all at least agree on this? I'm not sure how you can argue against it, but I just wanted to make sure what common ground is.
On September 16 2012 02:00 exog wrote: If we assume that all religions are violent, still muslims make the most violence on civilians..
They're also the most prosecuted and discriminated against. There might be a correlation there but that is just an assumption I've made, I have no backing for it.
Back someone into a corner for long enough they'll bite at any sign of danger, that is how I think Muslims are feeling.
Also
According to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security, in 2010, the number of American Muslims involved in terrorist acts dropped by more than half compared to 2009. More non-Muslims than Muslims were involved in terrorist attacks overall.
Interesting statement, this doesn't directly relate to your post (the link) but it goes to show Muslims aren't and always the terrorists and have been in the decline.
Stop making things up, Muslims are not even close to the most prosecuted religious group.
Where are the North Korean suicide bombers. Burmese ones, Tha ones? Zimabwean ones?
What about the prosecuted Christians who live in Islamic Apartheid states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, how come they dont blow stuff up in the name of jesus.
The most persecuted Muslims are persecuted by other Muslims, and what does Israel have to do with Muslims doing their usual rage dance and killing people over some movie that they had nothing to do with?
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
Goddamn, could you please limit your hate propaganda to one thread please? Thanks.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
Insult Mohammed = mass portest. I think it is predictable enough, though.
On September 16 2012 10:49 Chunhyang wrote: I hope you Americans take serious action on this, short of aggressive force. Stevens was one of the good guys really trying for peace.
What serious action could be taken, other than pulling all our people out?
I'm probably speaking out of line; but why are these (extremist) muslims so easily offended? Their reactions far overshadows a thoughtless satirical video like this one.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
Australian Muslims attacked police, waved Al-Quada Flags and chanted behaead those who insult islam, and Osama Osama we are all Osama.
Peaceful
Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch.
Anything to the right of a standard Euro social democratic party is barbarism in Biff's playbook, and he's not too sure about them either.
Muslim countries and too many Muslims outside of those countries are like the American South pre-1960s and the racist whites living there. In the South, there was a big minority of white people who thought segregation = great and we'll hurt anyone who tries to change it. Black kid looks at a white woman "wrong," let's beat him up and/or lynch him. Arrest black people if they try to enter the "white" area at the restaurant or on the bus or train or at a public bathroom. The majority of white people thought violence = not so great but segregation still = great, so they kept voting for politicians and appointing officials who'd turn a blind eye to the violence. And the underlying cause - racism - was never addressed. That's just the way things are in the South, Southern pride, don't lump them all in with the KKK, not all Southern whites are like that, the good whites (who were still racist and supported segregation) should be distinguished from the bad ones who kill people, blah blah blah blah. The majority created a society that allowed and encouraged the minority to be violent.
The bad things didn't stop happening until the rest of the US stopped buying the bullshit and said in court rulings and public opinion "this is bullshit and all of you bear responsibility for how your society runs and you're going to stop it or we'll stop it for you." And then we did. And there isn't legal segregation in the South anymore, and racism is not publicly socially acceptable.
Muslims have a responsibility to stop other Muslims from being racist, xenophobic, religiously supremacist and violent because of it; putting no pressure on the Muslim majority just ensures that the minority will continue to be violent and the majority will continue to maintain a society where the minority is allowed and encouraged to be violent.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
What would you like to see done about this?
legally, there isn't anything we can really do unless it falls under "hate speech" in the country of origin. but I'd like the people who make these videos to realize that they're not doing anything to help matters.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
What would you like to see done about this?
legally, there isn't anything we can really do unless it falls under "hate speech" in the country of origin. but I'd like the people who make these videos to realize that they're not doing anything to help matters.
I guarantee you that the people who made the video know what's going on and don't care.
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
What would you like to see done about this?
legally, there isn't anything we can really do unless it falls under "hate speech" in the country of origin. but I'd like the people who make these videos to realize that they're not doing anything to help matters.
I guarantee you that the people who made the video know what's going on and don't care.
uh... okay. you seem certain. but I would contend that there are people who genuinely think that the Islamic world needs to "be taught a lesson" and that this sort of thing is the way to do it.
I find it funny that nobody has any idea what's going on in the country but they'll read a report from the press and take it all in like it's 100% true. Nobody deserved to die but god all the generalizations? It's just ridiculous. grow up guys
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
Trying to scale the walls of a U.S. Embassy makes me care little what relations are like with the Islamic World, they obviously care little for diplomatic standards.
Personally I would like to see it. Perviously one one or two people would insult Mohammed for fear of rebuttal. A whole group doing it, that would just show that we don't give a fuck about their "protests", we won't back down.
Has that ever stopped the Islamic world from acting like morons the moments their ''prophet'' is insulted.
In the end we have to accept it is a extremly violent and unpredictable religion, we should also take this into account before we accept more of those people as immigrants.
The outburst is that of a child. By showing the film we give them the option of getting over themselves or extending the tantrum, either way sticking to our guns is the way to go.
It's childish, but that doesn't mean you can discipline an entire society like you would a child.
Yes, the West doesn't give a shit about protests in the Middle East. Message received. We can all congratulate ourselves on sticking up for freedom of speech.
But it certainly won't improve relations with the Islamic world. All it does it legitimize the perception of the West as anti-Islam.
Trying to scale the walls of a U.S. Embassy makes me care little what relations are like with the Islamic World, they obviously care little for diplomatic standards.
yeah, we have no need to negotiate with savages.
...
and whether or not you care about our relationship with them, it still affects us. bad relationship = more people climbing the walls.
I thought only imagery that idolizes the prophet above that of god or of the teaching he professed was suppose to be a offense? Obviously and inflammatory video or image trying to poke fun at another person religion might aggrivate the target individual (like the Onions recent artwork depiciting other religous icons perhaps), but such a video does not idolize Muhammed, right?
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I think there has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed somewhere. For example, spreading misinformation that directly leads to the death of innocents.
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Yes, well most of the rest of the developed world accepts that words can have an effect, and certain types should not be acceptable.
Freedom of speech is not, and never has been, truly absolute.
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Yes, well most of the rest of the developed world accepts that words can have an effect, and certain types should not be acceptable.
Freedom of speech is not, and never has been, truly absolute.
Same in America, though not to the same extent as a lot of other countries. We think hate speech is okay, but we still have laws against defamation, incitement, "fighting words," and provocation.
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Europe is fortunately still not a country, contrary to popular belief. I completely agree with that notion, until we get to the guy saying "fuck you niggers I hate niggers everywhere, let's pick up our guns and kill them all. I will personally go to your home, nigger, and put a gun in your mouth a pull the trigger".
I don't think such behaviour is acceptable, and I guess that's where our beliefs differ.
On September 16 2012 01:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:56 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:46 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:29 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:57 frontliner2 wrote: [quote] Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch.
Anything to the right of a standard Euro social democratic party is barbarism in Biff's playbook, and he's not too sure about them either.
Muslim countries and too many Muslims outside of those countries are like the American South pre-1960s and the racist whites living there. In the South, there was a big minority of white people who thought segregation = great and we'll hurt anyone who tries to change it. Black kid looks at a white woman "wrong," let's beat him up and/or lynch him. Arrest black people if they try to enter the "white" area at the restaurant or on the bus or train or at a public bathroom. The majority of white people thought violence = not so great but segregation still = great, so they kept voting for politicians and appointing officials who'd turn a blind eye to the violence. And the underlying cause - racism - was never addressed. That's just the way things are in the South, Southern pride, don't lump them all in with the KKK, not all Southern whites are like that, the good whites (who were still racist and supported segregation) should be distinguished from the bad ones who kill people, blah blah blah blah. The majority created a society that allowed and encouraged the minority to be violent.
The bad things didn't stop happening until the rest of the US stopped buying the bullshit and said in court rulings and public opinion "this is bullshit and all of you bear responsibility for how your society runs and you're going to stop it or we'll stop it for you." And then we did. And there isn't legal segregation in the South anymore, and racism is not publicly socially acceptable.
Muslims have a responsibility to stop other Muslims from being racist, xenophobic, religiously supremacist and violent because of it; putting no pressure on the Muslim majority just ensures that the minority will continue to be violent and the majority will continue to maintain a society where the minority is allowed and encouraged to be violent.
OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya.
I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments.
I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed.
On September 16 2012 01:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:56 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:46 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:29 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 00:57 frontliner2 wrote: [quote] Disgusting.
This whole event is making more non-muslims dislike muslims even more.
Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch.
Anything to the right of a standard Euro social democratic party is barbarism in Biff's playbook, and he's not too sure about them either.
Muslim countries and too many Muslims outside of those countries are like the American South pre-1960s and the racist whites living there. In the South, there was a big minority of white people who thought segregation = great and we'll hurt anyone who tries to change it. Black kid looks at a white woman "wrong," let's beat him up and/or lynch him. Arrest black people if they try to enter the "white" area at the restaurant or on the bus or train or at a public bathroom. The majority of white people thought violence = not so great but segregation still = great, so they kept voting for politicians and appointing officials who'd turn a blind eye to the violence. And the underlying cause - racism - was never addressed. That's just the way things are in the South, Southern pride, don't lump them all in with the KKK, not all Southern whites are like that, the good whites (who were still racist and supported segregation) should be distinguished from the bad ones who kill people, blah blah blah blah. The majority created a society that allowed and encouraged the minority to be violent.
The bad things didn't stop happening until the rest of the US stopped buying the bullshit and said in court rulings and public opinion "this is bullshit and all of you bear responsibility for how your society runs and you're going to stop it or we'll stop it for you." And then we did. And there isn't legal segregation in the South anymore, and racism is not publicly socially acceptable.
Muslims have a responsibility to stop other Muslims from being racist, xenophobic, religiously supremacist and violent because of it; putting no pressure on the Muslim majority just ensures that the minority will continue to be violent and the majority will continue to maintain a society where the minority is allowed and encouraged to be violent.
No you really don't get it.
First of all black people situation improved because they fought. It's not white people who started protesting because a minority of white people were oppressing the blacks. It's Martin Luther King, it's the Black Panthers, although their choice of violence was regrettable, and civil rights movements that made the situation change. Not your average "good" white man. White men didn't care for most of them.
So your analogy is not only bad, it's plainly revisionist. Anyway.
My point is simple. There are something like a billion Muslims in the world.
The fact that some fuckers belonging to a branch of Islam that you don't belong to, that live 10 000 km away from you in a post revolutionary country that you have never even visited killed an ambassador in a riot is none of your fucking problem if you are an average moderate Muslim.
Do you make a protest when Americans kill or torture people in Afghanistan or Irak?
Did you protest after the Abu Ghraib scandal? Did you protest when we have seen these helicopter soldier shooting civilians for fun? Did you protest when american soldiers pissed on dead bodies? Did you protest about waterboarding and use of torture by american army? Do you protest when Israel kill palestinian or demolish their house? Do you protest ... etc?
No. And you are perfectly right.
Why? Because the fact that some christian or some white people kill someone is not your fucking fault and has nothing to do with you. You are not responsible for what some extremist that happen to be of the same religion / ethnicity / whatever than you do.
Oh and yeah, in my playbook, far right people are barbarians. Le Pen is a barbarian, Santorum is a barbarian, Wilder is a barbarian. Just like those salafist idiots are barbarians too.
To explain you why, I'll leave you with one comment from Levy Strauss:
"The barbarian is the one who believes in barbary." And if you see a paradox, think again.
On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya.
I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments.
I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed.
Ban? Where is a racism in calling puppets = monkeys and you know it's a same thing. Nothing against people of Libya or any other muslin but those armed puppets from mountains have no understanding of any religion and they kill other muslin people when they claim that they are for religion freedom etc bla bla. Cleanly monkeys from mountains is an exact term to address them because they deserve no place in this world and btw nothing against animal monkeys cuz they are much more intelligent than those armed buffoons ... I'm not a brainwashed francophile but I'm used to it. There was nothing racist about calling people who fight for money monkeys but heck go donate to em if you believe what you hear in a small blue box called media.... Those monkeys train in mountains for their "freedom campaighns". Again I've seen this picture a million times before and will always repeat - feed monkeys to profit and watch em turn against you.
Reality check - electricity under Gaddafi was free for local people but thanks to "freedom fighters" there is no electricity or you have to pay for it - FAK YEA FREEDOM
On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya.
I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments.
I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed.
Ban? Where is a racism in calling puppets = monkeys and you know it's a same thing. I'm not a brainwashed francophile but I'm used to it. There was nothing racist about calling people who fight for money monkeys but heck go donate to em if you believe what you hear in a small blue box called media.... Those monkeys train in mountains for their "freedom campaighns". Again I've seen this picture a million times before and will always repeat - feed monkeys to profit and watch em turn against you.
Reality check - electricity under Gaddafi was free for local people but thanks to "freedom fighters" there is no electricity or you have to pay for it - FAK YEA FREEDOM
I apologize but maybe I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Might be a language barrier.
I apologize but maybe I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Might be a language barrier.
More like a media barrier cuz my English is fluent as far as I'm concerned. My point is that rich douchbags like George Soros create funds to arm terrorist organisations and create chaos in a place where they wanna gain power, profit etc. I mean they don't even try to hide where money goes - to kill civilians in Libya for example. But they pay media to advertise their charity/help funds and after you see monkeys with guns bought for your charity money running around killing people.
And what bothers me is people arguing about religion during all that?! Religion is like a language - different but same purpose and it is used by people on top to create diversity. Again those "freedom fighters" have nothing to do with religion - they just get payed to kill and say what they told to say about Islam/Christianity like brainless puppets.
Not to spam more about it but I am quite calm and feel that describing my point about paid puppets who kill, I should call them monkeys from mountains, because they have no respect for civilization.
I apologize but maybe I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Might be a language barrier.
More like a media barrier cuz my English is fluent as far as I'm concerned. My point is that rich douchbags like George Soros create funds to arm terrorist organisations and create chaos in a place where they wanna gain power, profit etc. I mean they don't even try to hide where money goes - to kill civilians in Libya for example. But they pay media to advertise their charity/help funds and after you see monkeys with guns bought for your charity money running around killing people.
Maybe it is actually because you're so overly bias that your words are coming off a bit odd. Why not slow yourself down and present a few more points instead of yelling fire at the top of your lungs. I'm all for saying that it is worse off but no need to act like a child who dropped their ice cream. Slow it down.
In the civilized world you don't get to refer to an entire population of people as "monkeys from mountains" without alienating reasonable people. TL is not a bar conversation with your racist cousins D:
In most European countries hate speech is an exception in the freedom of speech and is actually a crime. Sure we should stick to our freedom of speech, but pissing off extremists just because you can and thereby causing more civilian deaths is even more childish imo.
I think many European countries are infringing on freedom of speech. It's really terrifying, honestly.
a 19 year old being arrested for a Facebook post? Is freedom of speech a joke in the UK?
What do you mean by infringing? It's a national law. In most European countries there are clauses when it comes to harassment, threats, hate speech and such. Basically what's known as common sense.
Common sense? Wow. I'd never move to a country where someone can be arrested for "hate speech". It's ridiculous. I'm a strong believer of the concept "I don't agree with what you have to say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Europe is fortunately still not a country, contrary to popular belief. I completely agree with that notion, until we get to the guy saying "fuck you niggers I hate niggers everywhere, let's pick up our guns and kill them all. I will personally go to your home, nigger, and put a gun in your mouth a pull the trigger".
I don't think such behaviour is acceptable, and I guess that's where our beliefs differ.
I never said Europe was a country. If you read my posts you see phrases like "most European countries" that make it obvious that I know that Europe isn't a country. Nice try, though.
On September 16 2012 23:20 Djzapz wrote: In the civilized world you don't get to refer to an entire population of people as "monkeys from mountains" without alienating reasonable people. TL is not a bar conversation with your racist cousins D:
People of Libya are majority and they have same opinion as I do about those buffoons mostly. Sign, I referred to "freedom fighters/terrorists" who are not even Libyans, not population and heck I bet to call a chair what it is - "chair" and not gonna call it "table" cuz yellow press wants me to by using common sense. Funny how calling terrorists who train in mountains - monkeys from mountains makes one a racist but on the other hand totally expected. BTW I do know a lot about racism because I'm a minority so don't try to explain me something I have 1st hand experience of.
It's pointless to change opinions so I will have mine and you will continue with yours.
Also regarding topic, a little about those who attacked U.S. embassy. They were foreign citizens of Mali, Algeria and other countries. Just like all the "freedom fighters" there are no locals but a lot of "cancer" people from other places.
So guns don't grow on trees or monkeys make em themselves?! Anyway just like distribution of any goods today there are a lot of people involved and I have a clue about it that guns are sold to organisations who hire guys to kill staff. You know in hockey everyone used to say "did u trip on a banana spleen?" when someone dived but today it's racist... I kinda feel it's same meaning with monkeys (stupid puppets)...
On September 16 2012 21:07 Hazzyboy wrote: OMG ambassador killed by "freedom fighters" - talk about told ya so... How can morons like Soros sponsor "freedom fighters" by giving weapons to monkeys from mountains and feel safe that those monkeys are smart enough to be controlled - they just came from their mountains to kill and earn - they don't care for religion and just use it to cover their stupidity of profit. Anyway I get tired of this and just don't care anymore cuz it will never change just like us trying to get profit from anything...
RIP to all those innocent people killed in Libya.
I would quickly edit the stupidity out of your post, TL moderators are quick to ban bigots and plain racist comments.
I helped you out a bit by bolding the parts that should be removed.
Ban? Where is a racism in calling puppets = monkeys and you know it's a same thing. Nothing against people of Libya or any other muslin but those armed puppets from mountains have no understanding of any religion and they kill other muslin people when they claim that they are for religion freedom etc bla bla. Cleanly monkeys from mountains is an exact term to address them because they deserve no place in this world and btw nothing against animal monkeys cuz they are much more intelligent than those armed buffoons ... I'm not a brainwashed francophile but I'm used to it. There was nothing racist about calling people who fight for money monkeys but heck go donate to em if you believe what you hear in a small blue box called media.... Those monkeys train in mountains for their "freedom campaighns". Again I've seen this picture a million times before and will always repeat - feed monkeys to profit and watch em turn against you.
Reality check - electricity under Gaddafi was free for local people but thanks to "freedom fighters" there is no electricity or you have to pay for it - FAK YEA FREEDOM
Your use of the word 'monkey' is what makes it seem racist.
In the past when racism was more common in western europe, white people often revered to black people as monkeys. I always found it ironic as to my knowledge the only 100% homosapiens are black people, while most white and asian people are genetically closer to monkeys.
It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote: It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there?
Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote: It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there?
Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote: It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there?
Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
The term "actionable intelligence" seem sufficiently vague to mean a number of wildly different things.
On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote: It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there?
Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
The term "actionable intelligence" seem sufficiently vague to mean a number of wildly different things.
That's the goal isn't it? The more vague a statement, the farther the reach of definition. Unlawful combatant etc. Best to be vague and go "well I defined it differently" .
TL/DR: U.S. Government officials are now labeling the attack as a terrorist attack. There is evidence suggesting a link between the attack and Al Qaeda. Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Gitmo detainee and associate of Osama Bin Laden, is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack.
While there hasn't been a final decision on what motivated the attack, there is a lot of evidence that suggests the youtube video had little/nothing to do with the attack. Consequently, the White House is back tracking on its claim that the youtube video is what sparked this attack.
Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act. "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. Olsen echoed administration colleagues in saying U.S. officials have no specific intelligence about "significant advanced planning or coordination" for the attack. However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism. Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate. Olson, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates. "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. Still, Olsen said "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy, the attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours," Olson said. Carney said hours earlier that there still is "no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack," which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. "I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing. Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video. "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo." However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim. In the face of these conflicting accounts, Carney on Tuesday deferred to the ongoing investigation and opened the door to the possibility of other explanations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called Wednesday for an independent review of the attack. "A State Department Accountability Review Board to look into the Benghazi attack is not sufficient," Collins said. "Given the loss of the lives of four Americans who were serving their country and the serious questions that have been raised about the security at our Consulate in Benghazi, it is imperative that a non-political, no-holds-barred examination be conducted."
There is also evidence supporting a theory that the protests and subsequent attack was in retaliation for the ongoing imprisonment of "The Blind Sheikh."
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."
The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack. The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable." The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released." It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film. Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks." Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a Breitbart.com report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report. "Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports. "If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ... "While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength." They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness."
On September 20 2012 11:34 Joedaddy wrote: New developments:
TL/DR: U.S. Government officials are now labeling the attack as a terrorist attack. There is evidence suggesting a link between the attack and Al Qaeda. Sufyan Ben Qumu, a former Gitmo detainee and associate of Osama Bin Laden, is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack.
While there hasn't been a final decision on what motivated the attack, there is a lot of evidence that suggests the youtube video had little/nothing to do with the attack. Consequently, the White House is back tracking on its claim that the youtube video is what sparked this attack.
Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved. That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act. "Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday. Olsen echoed administration colleagues in saying U.S. officials have no specific intelligence about "significant advanced planning or coordination" for the attack. However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism. Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News' intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008. His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate. Olson, repeating Wednesday that the FBI is handling the Benghazi investigation, also acknowledged the attack could lead back to Al Qaeda and its affiliates. "We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb," he said at the Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing. Still, Olsen said "the facts that we have now indicate that this was an opportunistic attack on our embassy, the attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours," Olson said. Carney said hours earlier that there still is "no evidence of a preplanned or pre-meditated attack," which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. "I made that clear last week, Ambassador Rice made that clear Sunday," Carney said at the daily White House press briefing. Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video. "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo." However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim. In the face of these conflicting accounts, Carney on Tuesday deferred to the ongoing investigation and opened the door to the possibility of other explanations. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called Wednesday for an independent review of the attack. "A State Department Accountability Review Board to look into the Benghazi attack is not sufficient," Collins said. "Given the loss of the lives of four Americans who were serving their country and the serious questions that have been raised about the security at our Consulate in Benghazi, it is imperative that a non-political, no-holds-barred examination be conducted."
There is also evidence supporting a theory that the protests and subsequent attack was in retaliation for the ongoing imprisonment of "The Blind Sheikh."
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it."
The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi.
Fox News has obtained a three-page intelligence report showing that two days before the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, a statement incited "sons of Egypt" to pressure America to release the so-called blind sheikh "even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." The web statement, apparently posted on Sept. 9, was in reference to the embassy in Egypt. It preceded a throng of demonstrators breaching the U.S. Embassy wall in Cairo, supposedly in protest over an anti-Islam film. Obama administration officials claim that attackers in Libya then took their cue from Cairo and seized the opportunity to attack the consulate in Benghazi. Though the administration's version of events is still evolving, the three-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report further highlights potential threats that were being picked up before last week's attack. The DHS report, released on Sept. 11, said an "unidentified user" on an Arabic-language forum posted the statement "inciting Egyptians to target the U.S. Embassy, indicating the U.S. Embassy shouldn't remain in Egypt" until Omar Abdel-Rahman, also known as the blind sheikh, is released. Abdel-Rahman, who played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other attacks, is serving a life sentence in U.S. prison. The DHS document described the source of the warning as "fairly reliable." The Sept. 9 statement said "the time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained" sheikh. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released." It continued: "Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it." In addition to the threat over the sheikh, Reuters reported earlier this week that a U.S. cable on Sept. 10 warned the U.S. Embassy in Cairo of possible violence over the anti-Islam film. Asked about that alleged warning, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stressed Tuesday that everything is "under investigation in terms of what precipitated the attacks." Meanwhile, lawmakers raised concern Wednesday that the Obama administration might actually be considering the sheikh's release. Several Republican chairmen of top House committees wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referencing a Breitbart.com report claiming the State Department was "actively negotiating" with Egypt's president about transferring the blind sheikh to Egyptian custody. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland denied the report. "Let me say as clearly as I can there is no plan to release the blind sheikh, there is no plan. To my knowledge we have not been approached about it recently by any senior Egyptians," she said Wednesday. But House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King and others wrote to Holder and Clinton saying they were "concerned" about the reports. "If these reports are true, such considerations would be extremely disconcerting as release of this convicted terrorist should not happen for any reason," they wrote. "The blind sheikh inspired the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, ordered the 1997 massacre of Western tourists at Luxor, Egypt, and issued the Islamic religious ruling that Osama bin Laden relied upon to justify the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. ... "While considerations regarding the blind sheikh's release would be disturbing in any context, they are particularly alarming given recent events. The 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks was marked by the assassination of America's ambassador to Libya and an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. The violence in Egypt has been attributed, in part, to that government's demands for the blind sheikh's release. Succumbing to the demands of a country whose citizens threaten our embassy and the Americans serving in it would send a clear message that acts of violence will be responded to with appeasement rather than strength." They urged the administration to keep Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., warning that releasing him would be seen as "a sign of weakness."
I'm very curious to see what comes out of the ongoing investigations in the coming weeks.
Al Qaeda in the Maghreb and LIFG, both Islamic terrorist groups, were two of the cornerstones of the revolution (if not the most important ones), and comprised some of the key leaders. It would make perfect sense that it was Al Qaeda behind the attack, considering they won the civil war. Reminds me of Afghanistan. We support Islamic extremists and terrorists, and then we take them out when they don't do our bidding. Stay tuned on Libya.
On September 19 2012 14:20 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
On September 17 2012 07:31 JeremyK wrote: It really really pisses me off that Obama and his administration keep trying to push this was a random escalation from the protests. What right did the president have to speak at the funerals for those lost in Lybia when he doesn't have the balls to admit the attack was planned in fear of losing numbers in a poll.
""We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent," presidential spokesman Jay Carney said."
And now at the UN conference once again declaring it was not planned.
So I guess what the UN/US want us to believe is that there were some really angry punks in Libya, and there just HAPPENED to be weapons immediately available, and then just impulsively killed an ambassador right there?
Because if that's not what happened, then it was, by definition, planned.
That quote said they didnt have actionable intelligence that it was planned. Not that it wasn't planned. Or did I read wrong?
They were trying to make it appear it was a result of the video, that way there was no blame back on the government for not protecting their diplomats.
The Obama camp tried pretty damn hard to cover up this attack, when directly out the gate there was in fact massive intelligence stating it was a planned terrorist attack that was not related to the protests (which were not even happening at the embassy!, thats how bad this cover up was). It is about damn time they came out and admitted it was in fact a terrorist attack. It was puzzling to see how long they held off on saying it. Election polls fears brings out the worst of our government.
On September 16 2012 01:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:56 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:46 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:29 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:19 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Stop making generalization. If you make conclusions about "muslims" because of some idiots playing at Al Qaeda with black flags, you are the racist one.
There are 5-10% muslims in Western countries. That's millions and millions of people. An enormous majority doesn't support this shit, doesn't care that some idiot made some video and hate Al Qaeda just as you do.
Thinking that this is a justification for the huge amount of racism happening in your country and in mine towards Muslim and immigrants in general is plain wrong. I have muslim family, muslim friends, they are good, enlightened and loyal French citizens and people who, for a reason or another dislike them because of where they come from of the God they prey are just retards.
I don't feel that anybody should hate me because of what some Christian extremists might do. If a Muslim comes to me and say that Breivik is a reason why he hates me I will think he is both a racist and an idiot. Same here.
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch.
Anything to the right of a standard Euro social democratic party is barbarism in Biff's playbook, and he's not too sure about them either.
Muslim countries and too many Muslims outside of those countries are like the American South pre-1960s and the racist whites living there. In the South, there was a big minority of white people who thought segregation = great and we'll hurt anyone who tries to change it. Black kid looks at a white woman "wrong," let's beat him up and/or lynch him. Arrest black people if they try to enter the "white" area at the restaurant or on the bus or train or at a public bathroom. The majority of white people thought violence = not so great but segregation still = great, so they kept voting for politicians and appointing officials who'd turn a blind eye to the violence. And the underlying cause - racism - was never addressed. That's just the way things are in the South, Southern pride, don't lump them all in with the KKK, not all Southern whites are like that, the good whites (who were still racist and supported segregation) should be distinguished from the bad ones who kill people, blah blah blah blah. The majority created a society that allowed and encouraged the minority to be violent.
The bad things didn't stop happening until the rest of the US stopped buying the bullshit and said in court rulings and public opinion "this is bullshit and all of you bear responsibility for how your society runs and you're going to stop it or we'll stop it for you." And then we did. And there isn't legal segregation in the South anymore, and racism is not publicly socially acceptable.
Muslims have a responsibility to stop other Muslims from being racist, xenophobic, religiously supremacist and violent because of it; putting no pressure on the Muslim majority just ensures that the minority will continue to be violent and the majority will continue to maintain a society where the minority is allowed and encouraged to be violent.
No you really don't get it.
First of all black people situation improved because they fought. It's not white people who started protesting because a minority of white people were oppressing the blacks. It's Martin Luther King, it's the Black Panthers, although their choice of violence was regrettable, and civil rights movements that made the situation change. Not your average "good" white man. White men didn't care for most of them.
So your analogy is not only bad, it's plainly revisionist. Anyway.
My point is simple. There are something like a billion Muslims in the world.
The fact that some fuckers belonging to a branch of Islam that you don't belong to, that live 10 000 km away from you in a post revolutionary country that you have never even visited killed an ambassador in a riot is none of your fucking problem if you are an average moderate Muslim.
Do you make a protest when Americans kill or torture people in Afghanistan or Irak?
Did you protest after the Abu Ghraib scandal? Did you protest when we have seen these helicopter soldier shooting civilians for fun? Did you protest when american soldiers pissed on dead bodies? Did you protest about waterboarding and use of torture by american army? Do you protest when Israel kill palestinian or demolish their house? Do you protest ... etc?
No. And you are perfectly right.
Why? Because the fact that some christian or some white people kill someone is not your fucking fault and has nothing to do with you. You are not responsible for what some extremist that happen to be of the same religion / ethnicity / whatever than you do.
Oh and yeah, in my playbook, far right people are barbarians. Le Pen is a barbarian, Santorum is a barbarian, Wilder is a barbarian. Just like those salafist idiots are barbarians too.
To explain you why, I'll leave you with one comment from Levy Strauss:
"The barbarian is the one who believes in barbary." And if you see a paradox, think again.
On September 16 2012 22:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 12:42 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On September 16 2012 02:08 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:56 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:46 ranshaked wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 16 2012 01:29 ranshaked wrote: [quote]
I believe the issue is that even moderate Muslims are not necessarily sympathizing with the extremists, but they also aren't condoning the extremists' action. With that said, why are there not more anti-extremist protests by Muslims?
I'm more worried about the lack of sympathy for freedom of speech, and the disappointing number of Muslims standing up against the extremists.
Because it has nothing to do with them?
Why a moderate muslim should be involved in a conflict involving a racist who say they are a cancer in our society and some people who go ape shit nuts with paranoid slogans in those demos?
By the way, why aren't you protesting against this video? If there are reasons to protest against those demos, I guess we should protest against this video.
Unless Muslims should protest because salafists killed someone in Lybia? Seems unreal.
It has everything to do with them. They consider themselves to be brothers of Islam, regardless of extremism or not. In America, we have the Westboro Baptist Church, which appear moderate compared to extreme Muslims, but when the WBC protests funerals and the streets you will see ten times their number as an opposition.
Muslims should be protesting to protect their religion and way of life from the extremists. When you sit quietly and show apathy toward the situation, all you do is hurt your chances at being understood by Western society. Think of it this way: When your family does something insane, cruel etc, you shun them, you distance yourself from that person and make sure they know what they've done is wrong. You don't stand there and do nothing, or completely ignore the situation.
The only people that can rid extremists are the moderates and progressives of that group.
As for the video, it's a freedom of speech issue. It isn't violence, it is just hate, but I can accept hate, I cannot accept violence.
Great. So since those demos are about hate and not violence, you should respect them and stick to your principles. They have nothing to do with the ambassador who got killed in a far away country by completely different people.
As for Muslims, I don't feel that I have to protest everytime some Christian nutcase does something stupid. I don't feel that any Christian is my "brother" and that I am responsible for their acts. Did you protest when Breivik killed 70 people? No. Why should my cousin protest because some people he despise killed someone for bad reason that he doesn't agree with in a country that is as far from him as Norway is from you? Why on EARTH should a European or American muslim protest and make demos because some salafists killed someone in Lybia?
That's fucking ridiculous.
Because there aren't hundreds of thousands of Breivik's, or mass murderers, but there are hundreds of thousands of extremist Muslims that want nothing more than the death of Western civilization...
These extremists cause problems and we have to stand against all of them, not just Muslims, but Christians etc.
We cannot continue to sit by and ignore it. How do you not see this? How do you not see how the extremists are ruining Muslim countries? You're completely missing the point.
There are quite a lot of people who have ideas I don't find much better than the ones of extremist Muslim. The whole Tea Party for example.
Extremist are ruining Muslim countries and Muslims life in our countries because people are not clever enough between a fraction of people and the immense majority who don't share any of those ideas. They just see "the Muslims" and dmix everything up.
The Tea Party isn't destroying their cities, or burning buildings, or killing innocent people. These protests are not peaceful, and should not be the reaction to a hate filled video. Nonetheless, I hope one day that we can all just get along, but that's a long stretch.
Anything to the right of a standard Euro social democratic party is barbarism in Biff's playbook, and he's not too sure about them either.
Muslim countries and too many Muslims outside of those countries are like the American South pre-1960s and the racist whites living there. In the South, there was a big minority of white people who thought segregation = great and we'll hurt anyone who tries to change it. Black kid looks at a white woman "wrong," let's beat him up and/or lynch him. Arrest black people if they try to enter the "white" area at the restaurant or on the bus or train or at a public bathroom. The majority of white people thought violence = not so great but segregation still = great, so they kept voting for politicians and appointing officials who'd turn a blind eye to the violence. And the underlying cause - racism - was never addressed. That's just the way things are in the South, Southern pride, don't lump them all in with the KKK, not all Southern whites are like that, the good whites (who were still racist and supported segregation) should be distinguished from the bad ones who kill people, blah blah blah blah. The majority created a society that allowed and encouraged the minority to be violent.
The bad things didn't stop happening until the rest of the US stopped buying the bullshit and said in court rulings and public opinion "this is bullshit and all of you bear responsibility for how your society runs and you're going to stop it or we'll stop it for you." And then we did. And there isn't legal segregation in the South anymore, and racism is not publicly socially acceptable.
Muslims have a responsibility to stop other Muslims from being racist, xenophobic, religiously supremacist and violent because of it; putting no pressure on the Muslim majority just ensures that the minority will continue to be violent and the majority will continue to maintain a society where the minority is allowed and encouraged to be violent.
No you really don't get it.
First of all black people situation improved because they fought. It's not white people who started protesting because a minority of white people were oppressing the blacks. It's Martin Luther King, it's the Black Panthers, although their choice of violence was regrettable, and civil rights movements that made the situation change. Not your average "good" white man. White men didn't care for most of them.
So your analogy is not only bad, it's plainly revisionist. Anyway.
My point is simple. There are something like a billion Muslims in the world.
The fact that some fuckers belonging to a branch of Islam that you don't belong to, that live 10 000 km away from you in a post revolutionary country that you have never even visited killed an ambassador in a riot is none of your fucking problem if you are an average moderate Muslim.
Do you make a protest when Americans kill or torture people in Afghanistan or Irak?
Did you protest after the Abu Ghraib scandal? Did you protest when we have seen these helicopter soldier shooting civilians for fun? Did you protest when american soldiers pissed on dead bodies? Did you protest about waterboarding and use of torture by american army? Do you protest when Israel kill palestinian or demolish their house? Do you protest ... etc?
No. And you are perfectly right.
Why? Because the fact that some christian or some white people kill someone is not your fucking fault and has nothing to do with you. You are not responsible for what some extremist that happen to be of the same religion / ethnicity / whatever than you do.
Oh and yeah, in my playbook, far right people are barbarians. Le Pen is a barbarian, Santorum is a barbarian, Wilder is a barbarian. Just like those salafist idiots are barbarians too.
To explain you why, I'll leave you with one comment from Levy Strauss:
"The barbarian is the one who believes in barbary." And if you see a paradox, think again.
you're my fu**in hero! thank god for you!
Not so hasty, young Iraqi . First you must listen to your ancient king . My most common online username is Bolts / sdbolts, so I guess you should listen to your ancient thunder god as well (Marduk).
While Biff is correct in pointing out the general complacency in protesting against injustices, there is a prime difference between Arab folks and African-Americans. The overarching goal of African-Americans in the US was to not be treated like 3rd-class citizens (where laws were in place to discriminate against them) in the South and 2nd-class citizens outside of the South where less formal prejudice would take place. The Arabs, even many groups within each country, have many goals, and for the most part they have been the goal of Islamification, which is a terrible and abominable one. Look at your own country. 30 years ago, an extremely secular society. Khomeini corrupts some of the Shi'a, and by today, many of them are fundies, and it has spread to other groups as well. It is absolutely disgusting, but completely representative of the current trend in the Middle East since Khomeini's takeover in Iran.
On top of that, the Iraqi Christians have either been killed off or dispersed to foreign countries, or to the towns in the northern part of the country, almost eliminating the "home" ethnicity of Assyrians and Chaldeans. Apparently this has been one of the other goals of many Arab "activists", unfortunately. Meanwhile, Copts live in fear that the Muslim Broterhood seize actual power in Egypt (the military is still actually in power) and begin persecuting them, and Maronites and other Lebanese Christians fear the growing influence of Hezbollah.
A Libyan Islamist militia was swept out of the eastern city of Benghazi in a popular protest against the armed groups that ran into the early hours of Saturday morning, Reuters witnesses said.
I'm glad this happened. They went out of their way to prove there's some good in this shitty world.
A Libyan Islamist militia was swept out of the eastern city of Benghazi in a popular protest against the armed groups that ran into the early hours of Saturday morning, Reuters witnesses said.
I'm glad this happened. They went out of their way to prove there's some good in this shitty world.
Well, I didn't think I'd see this happening in a million years.
Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour told reporters that he would pay the reward for the "sacred duty" out of his own pocket.
"I announce today that this blasphemer who has abused the holy prophet, if somebody will kill him, I will give that person a prize of $100,000," the minister said.
It seems the Pakistani government has been infiltrated by crazy extreme Muslims. Or maybe it's not so crazy for some Muslims, like a legitimate government minister, to believe this.
Authorities in Libya have announced a decision to dissolve all militias and armed groups that did not come under the authority of the state after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, state media reports.
The announcement was made by Mohammed al-Megarief, the head of the Libyan national assembly, late on Saturday during a press conference.
"We're disbanding all the armed groups that do not fall under the authority of the government. We're also banning the use of violence and carrying of weapons in public places. It's also illegal to set up checkpoints. We've instructed the appropriate government agencies to ensure that these directives are implemented," he said.
The authorities also decided to put in place an "operations room" in Benghazi bringing together the army, forces of the interior ministry and defence ministry brigades comprising former rebels.
They have called on the army to impose its authority by putting its own officers at the head of brigades born out of the 2011 revolt, which escalated into civil war and toppled Gaddafi's government.
The announcement of the ban came hours after two armed groups said they would lay down their weapons and leave their bases in the eastern city of Derna.
Derna residents say five military camps are now empty, after Abu Slim and Ansar al-Sharia, the two main militias in the area, withdrew.
"Abu Slim had three camps and Ansar al-Sharia had two. So it's five. Empty. All empty," Siraj Shennib, a 29-year-old linguistics professor who has been part of protests against the militia, told the Reuters news agency by telephone.
The Abu Slim and Ansar al-Sharia decisions were said to have been motivated by events in Benghazi on Friday.
There was no protest at the compound prior to the attack.
Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.
In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.
"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."
The State Department denies that it ever claimed it was a protest due to a YouTube video that took place.
The State Department says it never concluded that an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya was simply a protest gone awry, a statement that places the Obama administration’s own foreign policy arm in sync with Republicans.
That extraordinary message, appearing to question the administration’s initial description of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, came in a department briefing Tuesday — a day before a hearing on diplomatic security in Libya was to be held by the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has accused the State Department of turning aside pleas from its diplomats in Libya to increase security in the months and weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi. One scheduled witness Wednesday, Eric Nordstrom, is the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya who told the committee his pleas for more security were ignored.
Briefing reporters Tuesday ahead of the hearing, department officials were asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an American-made anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet. One official responded, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying.
Pentagon confirms the attack was pre-planned by terrorist organization, Democrats join Republicans in criticizing Obama administration.
Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration's handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an "accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen," according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.
President Obama came under intense criticism because the administration's explanation for what happened at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi kept changing. For days, the administration insisted to the public and Congress that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an American-made anti-Muslim video. As recently as Tuesday, in an address to the United Nations, Obama was blaming the video for inciting the attack.
But as evidence came to light showing that mortar rounds had been fired into the U.S. compound and that the attack had been carefully planned, the administration's explanation changed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first suggested in a high-level meeting at the U.N. that there could be a link between al Qaeda and "other violent extremists" and the attack in Benghazi.
On Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed that the attack was the work of a terrorist organization and not related to the anti-Muslim video.
"It was a terrorist attack," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference.
The Obama administration clearly had been hoping that the Libya attack would fade in the public's consciousness, said James Carafano, a defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. With congressional Democrats now also questioning how events unfolded, however, that's not likely to happen.
"Their hope was that on Monday, when the facts started to come out, everyone would have moved on, and that was a miscalculation on their part," Carafano said. "The one thing you can't do is have people intentionally lying to Congress or withholding information from Congress and then think you are not going to pay a price for that."
Claims are rising that the Obama administration intentionally misled the people regarding attack.
The Obama administration's lies about the Benghazi attack continue to unravel. The President would like us to believe that he and his spokespeople have merely passed on the best intelligence they had as it evolved. But the State Department said yesterday that it never concluded that there was a protest outside the consulate.
For seven days after the attack, the Obama administration clung to its YouTube protest fiction. Then, the White House claimed to have received new information that the attack was terrorism, planned in advance and unrelated to a protest. Yesterday's State Department admission reveals this "evolving intelligence" claim to be yet another lie.
Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence suspected that it was terrorism linked to Al Qaeda. At the time, the Obama administration was still claiming it was merely a spontaneous protest that got out of hand.
By September 13, the President had internally designated the attack an act of terrorism so that he would have the legal authority to mobilize military and intelligence assets. But, for the next five days, his spokespeople, most notably Press Secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Rice, continued to insist that the attack started as a protest.
The State Department is now saying that, like the intelligence agencies, it never concluded that the attack grew out of a protest. So why did the Obama administration continue to tell the protest lie to the public for a week after the attack?
I'll tell you why.
The President would have been in a tough spot if he had admitted at the time of the attack and murder of a U.S. ambassador that it was Al Qaeda-linked terrorism. After all, he had, only five days earlier, boasted at the Democratic National Convention that "Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat."
A disaster like the premeditated slaying of a U.S. ambassador would also call into question Obama's entire Libyan adventure. In truth, the very act of toppling Gaddafi made the region less safe, less stable, and less manageable. And responsibility for that lies solely with President Obama, since he failed even to ask Congress for authorization to attack Libya.
To avoid the indignity of being called to account for his own failed policies, the President and his staff concocted a lie. It was a plausible lie, though it rested on the absurd stereotype that Middle Eastern mobs carry mortars with them. But it was a lie and it was designed to direct the public's attentions away from Obama's own failures.
This seems relevant given all of the new developments on this recently. Its absolutely mind boggling how our government threw the creator of "The Video" under the bus, what I believe, to be a diversion tactic for the upcoming election.
I thought it was already known that the attack was not connected to the protest? Are they suggesting there was no protest in the first place, only an attack?
Then who was dragging his corpse through the streets?
On October 19 2012 18:03 zalz wrote: I don't entirely follow.
I thought it was already known that the attack was not connected to the protest? Are they suggesting there was no protest in the first place, only an attack?
Then who was dragging his corpse through the streets?
I think people were trying to get him medical attention, not dragging him around.
On October 19 2012 18:03 zalz wrote: I don't entirely follow.
I thought it was already known that the attack was not connected to the protest? Are they suggesting there was no protest in the first place, only an attack?
Then who was dragging his corpse through the streets?
I think people were trying to get him medical attention, not dragging him around.
I thought that was just the left-wing reading.
Either way, still doesn't really explain where the crowd, dangerous or helpful, came from, if there wasn't a protest.
Really doubt a crowd of people is going to run towards an embassy being attacked, fight off Al-Qaeda, and save a guy that most of them probably couldn't identify as someone important.
Either way, still don't really get what changed atm.
On October 19 2012 18:03 zalz wrote: I don't entirely follow.
I thought it was already known that the attack was not connected to the protest? Are they suggesting there was no protest in the first place, only an attack?
Then who was dragging his corpse through the streets?
I think people were trying to get him medical attention, not dragging him around.
I thought that was just the left-wing reading.
Either way, still doesn't really explain where the crowd, dangerous or helpful, came from, if there wasn't a protest.
Really doubt a crowd of people is going to run towards an embassy being attacked, fight off Al-Qaeda, and save a guy that most of them probably couldn't identify as someone important.
Either way, still don't really get what changed atm.
Its been confirmed that there is a surveillance tape of the outside of the compound. Its also been confirmed by state department officials that there was no protest/riot going on outside of the embassy prior to the attack.
As far as crowds and "disaster" situations go, its not unreasonable to think that a group of people showed up to offer assistance after the attack. People help people in emergency situations all the time, and even more people will stand for hours just to gawk at destruction.
At best, this administration showed an extreme lack of competency in their handling of the situation. At worst, they knew all a long that "The Video" had absolutely nothing to do with it and outright lied to the world and the American people in what could prove to be the biggest presidential scandal since watergate.
Either way, I think our government owes the maker of the video a formal apology. Blaming an act of terror on a private citizen before getting all of your facts straight is disgustingly short sighted and irresponsible. I can't even imagine the mental anguish and guilt he must have felt after being told the blood of innocents was on his hands because of a satirical movie he made in jest.
Well, I don't think the movie-man really feels too bad about the whole thing, it kind of was his goal to get a rise out of people. Not that that justifies censorship, in fact, I was one of the more vocal defenders of his right to make shitty movies.
But I agree that it is rather disturbing if it turns out that the government deflected attention towards a private citizen for political gain.
Just as a historical note, Biff doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in this quote:
No you really don't get it.
First of all black people situation improved because they fought. It's not white people who started protesting because a minority of white people were oppressing the blacks. It's Martin Luther King, it's the Black Panthers, although their choice of violence was regrettable, and civil rights movements that made the situation change. Not your average "good" white man. White men didn't care for most of them.
So your analogy is not only bad, it's plainly revisionist. Anyway.
No, you really don't get it, because you're ignorant.
The civil rights movement in the southern United States had no victories in the 1950s that did not come from white (Northern) men: Brown v. Board of Education, integration at Little Rock with the 82nd Airborne protecting black students, etc.
The non-violent protest approach of the SCLC was getting very few results from the entrenched, institutional racism of southern society. Four events changed the dynamic. (Not listed in chronological order)
Each of these incidents had a serious impact on whites in the North. You try to diminish the credit whites should get because according to you "we didn't start" protesting segregation. Well, if you weren't ignorant, you'd realize that the (white) Catholic Church (and a few Protestant denominations) was about the only formal institution in the South for decades other than the NAACP that was anti-racist.
The civil rights campaign was not succeeding against the racist white majority in the South until the white people (in the North) who you say "didn't care" for most of "them" (black people I presume) started putting pressure on their politicians and giving aid to the black civil rights organizations. Your mention of the Black Panther Party is both illuminating and funny, as no group other than the KKK did more to poison race relations and sour the end (and aftermath) of the civil rights era than the BPP.
There is no way that blacks could have gotten equality under the law if they did not have significant help from whites. Blacks had been trying to do it mostly on their own since 1865 and the racist whites were too numerous and too strong. They needed help and we gladly gave it, so please don't shit on us because of your ideologically-driven racial prism.
Muslim societies that are similarly violent and xenophobic and supremacist to the American South aren't right next door, they're ten thousand miles away. We need the help of Muslims here and there who aren't barbarians to change those societies so they stop pumping out so many Jew-hating murder lovers. We need their help to stop Muslims here who support the barbaric ones there. Defensive statements about how of course we condemn violence don't really mean much when it seems like most every Muslim civic organization in this country (and other Western ones) has shady ties to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, or guys like Sheikh Rahman or that hook guy in Britain (he's not there anymore) were the top preachers at mosques that seemed quite popular in their communities, teaching jihad and running plots in the back rooms.
If you don't want (some) Muslims (in enough numbers to destabilize countries) to still be pissed off at everyone who isn't as medieval as they are 50 years from now, you need to be putting pressure on the other Muslims to stop allowing organizations like Hezbollah to exist. If peaceful moderate Muslims are the great majority, it shouldn't be too hard for them to root out this violent minority, right?
Its mind boggling to me how this story is being completely swept under the rug, and even more disgusting how our government hung the film maker out to dry just to cover up a terrorist attack. This man deserves some sort of compensation considering how much these allegations have undoubtedly impacted his life.
US security flaws exposed in Libya The US Department of State has known for decades that inadequate security at embassies and consulates worldwide could lead to tragedy, but senior officials ignored the warnings and left some of America's most dangerous diplomatic posts vulnerable to attack, according to an internal government report obtained exclusively by Al Jazeera's Investigative Unit.
The report by an independent panel of five security and intelligence experts describes how the September 11, 2012, attack on the US Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, which left Ambassador J Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, exploited the State Department's failure to address serious security concerns at diplomatic facilities in high-risk areas.
Among the most damning assessments, the panel concluded that the State Department's failure to identify worsening conditions in Libya and exemptions from security regulations at the US Special Mission contributed to the tragedy in Benghazi. Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy approved using Benghazi as a temporary post despite its significant vulnerabilities, according to an internal State Department document included with the report.
60 Minutes released their in depth investigation of what happened in Libya. The testimonials of the security team on the scene was riveting.
Also, Vanity Fair wrote an excellent piece on the attack on the compound, a sort of minute-by-minute play through. It's filled with military lingo, a great read if you're an armchair general like me.
NEW YORK -- Security officer Dylan Davies admitted this weekend that he lied to a superior in September 2012 about his whereabouts the night of the Benghazi attack. But Davies says his latest version of events, told on CBS' "60 Minutes" and in a new memoir, are true.
“I am just a little man against some big people here,” Davies told The Daily Beast in an interview published Saturday, suggesting he was the victim of a smear campaign.
Davies’ account of the night four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in a terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi has been challenged since he appeared Oct. 27 on “60 Minutes,” in an interview CBS billed as “the first eyewitness account from a westerner” on the ground that night.
The Washington Post revealed on Thursday that Davies once provided a different account of the events. The Post reported that Davies previously claimed to have never reached the compound on the night of the attack, saying he only arrived the day after. But in the version he relayed on “60 Minutes,” as well as in a new memoir published under a pseudonym, Davies arrives at the compound as the battle rages on and tangles with a terrorist.
Davies' admission that he changed his story raises several questions for "60 Minutes." Did the program know Davies once told a superior that he didn't reach the compound? If not, will the network revisit the story? And if so, how did "60 Minutes" vet its eyewitness to be sure he's now providing an accurate version of events?
A spokesman for the program, Kevin Tedesco, stood by the Davies interview when reached by The Washington Post. Tedesco has not responded to repeated requests from The Huffington Post to discuss it.
In the possible first sign of a major climbdown, "60 Minutes" announced Thursday night that it is "reviewing" its controversial report on the Benghazi attacks after finding what reports say is further evidence that one of its main sources changed his account of events repeatedly.
The CBS program came under repeated criticism after it was revealed that the source—a security officer named Dylan Davies who provided correspondent Lara Logan with an eye-popping, made-for-TV account of the tragic events in Benghazi—had previously lied about his whereabouts on the night of the attack, throwing into question whether the story he told to "60 Minutes" could be trusted.
"60 Minutes" initially defended itself, with the show's executive producer Jeff Fager telling HuffPost's Michael Calderone that he was "proud" of the report and Logan attributing the scrutiny to political partisanship.
However, on Thursday night, the show issued a statement saying that it had found new information. Using Davies' pseudonym, Morgan Jones, "60 Minutes" said it was looking to see whether it had been lied to:
60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.
In the possible first sign of a major climbdown, "60 Minutes" announced Thursday night that it is "reviewing" its controversial report on the Benghazi attacks after finding what reports say is further evidence that one of its main sources changed his account of events repeatedly.
The CBS program came under repeated criticism after it was revealed that the source—a security officer named Dylan Davies who provided correspondent Lara Logan with an eye-popping, made-for-TV account of the tragic events in Benghazi—had previously lied about his whereabouts on the night of the attack, throwing into question whether the story he told to "60 Minutes" could be trusted.
"60 Minutes" initially defended itself, with the show's executive producer Jeff Fager telling HuffPost's Michael Calderone that he was "proud" of the report and Logan attributing the scrutiny to political partisanship.
However, on Thursday night, the show issued a statement saying that it had found new information. Using Davies' pseudonym, Morgan Jones, "60 Minutes" said it was looking to see whether it had been lied to:
60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.
Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.
In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.
"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."
The State Department says it never concluded that an attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya was simply a protest gone awry, a statement that places the Obama administration’s own foreign policy arm in sync with Republicans.
That extraordinary message, appearing to question the administration’s initial description of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, came in a department briefing Tuesday — a day before a hearing on diplomatic security in Libya was to be held by the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has accused the State Department of turning aside pleas from its diplomats in Libya to increase security in the months and weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi. One scheduled witness Wednesday, Eric Nordstrom, is the former chief security officer for U.S. diplomats in Libya who told the committee his pleas for more security were ignored.
Briefing reporters Tuesday ahead of the hearing, department officials were asked about the administration’s initial — and since retracted — explanation linking the violence to protests over an American-made anti-Muslim video circulating on the Internet. One official responded, “That was not our conclusion.” He called it a question for “others” to answer, without specifying.
Senate Democrats joined Republicans Thursday in questioning the Obama administration's handling of the fatal Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and why the administration refused for days to acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack linked to al Qaeda.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., circulated a bipartisan letter addressed to Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking for an "accounting of the attacks against U.S. missions in Egypt, Libya and Yemen," according to a copy obtained by The Washington Examiner.
The lawmakers are also demanding to know whether the administration had any advance warnings of the Libyan attack and, if so, whether it had shared that information with U.S. personnel on the ground.
President Obama came under intense criticism because the administration's explanation for what happened at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi kept changing. For days, the administration insisted to the public and Congress that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an American-made anti-Muslim video. As recently as Tuesday, in an address to the United Nations, Obama was blaming the video for inciting the attack.
But as evidence came to light showing that mortar rounds had been fired into the U.S. compound and that the attack had been carefully planned, the administration's explanation changed. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton first suggested in a high-level meeting at the U.N. that there could be a link between al Qaeda and "other violent extremists" and the attack in Benghazi.
On Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed that the attack was the work of a terrorist organization and not related to the anti-Muslim video.
"It was a terrorist attack," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said at a news conference.
The Obama administration clearly had been hoping that the Libya attack would fade in the public's consciousness, said James Carafano, a defense expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. With congressional Democrats now also questioning how events unfolded, however, that's not likely to happen.
"Their hope was that on Monday, when the facts started to come out, everyone would have moved on, and that was a miscalculation on their part," Carafano said. "The one thing you can't do is have people intentionally lying to Congress or withholding information from Congress and then think you are not going to pay a price for that."
The Obama administration's lies about the Benghazi attack continue to unravel. The President would like us to believe that he and his spokespeople have merely passed on the best intelligence they had as it evolved. But the State Department said yesterday that it never concluded that there was a protest outside the consulate.
For seven days after the attack, the Obama administration clung to its YouTube protest fiction. Then, the White House claimed to have received new information that the attack was terrorism, planned in advance and unrelated to a protest. Yesterday's State Department admission reveals this "evolving intelligence" claim to be yet another lie.
Within 24 hours of the attack, U.S. intelligence suspected that it was terrorism linked to Al Qaeda. At the time, the Obama administration was still claiming it was merely a spontaneous protest that got out of hand.
By September 13, the President had internally designated the attack an act of terrorism so that he would have the legal authority to mobilize military and intelligence assets. But, for the next five days, his spokespeople, most notably Press Secretary Jay Carney and U.N. Ambassador Rice, continued to insist that the attack started as a protest.
The State Department is now saying that, like the intelligence agencies, it never concluded that the attack grew out of a protest. So why did the Obama administration continue to tell the protest lie to the public for a week after the attack?
I'll tell you why.
The President would have been in a tough spot if he had admitted at the time of the attack and murder of a U.S. ambassador that it was Al Qaeda-linked terrorism. After all, he had, only five days earlier, boasted at the Democratic National Convention that "Al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat."
A disaster like the premeditated slaying of a U.S. ambassador would also call into question Obama's entire Libyan adventure. In truth, the very act of toppling Gaddafi made the region less safe, less stable, and less manageable. And responsibility for that lies solely with President Obama, since he failed even to ask Congress for authorization to attack Libya.
To avoid the indignity of being called to account for his own failed policies, the President and his staff concocted a lie. It was a plausible lie, though it rested on the absurd stereotype that Middle Eastern mobs carry mortars with them. But it was a lie and it was designed to direct the public's attentions away from Obama's own failures.
Friend, there is no need to clarify you are allergic (algeric??) to reading. And I could tell you what happened, but that wouldn't be as ideal as you simply reading in depth about exactly what happened.
If you're really just that lazy though, then I suppose I can leave you with the simple reassurance that it was not a sophisticated attack planned in advance by Al Qaeda operatives which was subsequently covered up by Obama as some sort of ridiculous conspiracy. It was -- surprise -- actually rather more complex than the inane "Obama done gone n' cover'd up that there Al Qaeda plots", which you can see for yourself by reading the report
Remember when all the extremist republicans were raging hard about Obama covering up an AQ attack to save face after having claimed AQ had been weakened significantly, and how anti-American that was -- yet another item among the litany of Obama-bash material? We knew it was nonsense then, but now we can see clearly by this report that it was...nonsense!
On December 29 2013 13:12 FallDownMarigold wrote: Friend, there is no need to clarify you are allergic (algeric??) to reading. And I could tell you what happened, but that wouldn't be as ideal as you simply reading in depth about exactly what happened.
If you're really just that lazy though, then I suppose I can leave you with the simple reassurance that it was not a sophisticated attack planned in advance by Al Qaeda operatives which was subsequently covered up by Obama as some sort of ridiculous conspiracy. It was -- surprise -- actually rather more complex than the inane "Obama done gone n' cover'd up that there Al Qaeda plots", which you can see for yourself by reading the report
Remember when all the extremist republicans were raging hard about Obama covering up an AQ attack to save face after having claimed AQ had been weakened significantly, and how anti-American that was -- yet another item among the litany of Obama-bash material? We knew it was nonsense then, but now we can see clearly by this report that it was...nonsense!
As much as in-depth the NY Times article was, I wish you read the responses to it before you spit out your claim of victory and the post-analysis to this as if it was a done deal. The two biggest questions to this article is the fact that whether or not the militia, Ansar al-Shariah, should considered either associated or under the umbrella of Al Qaeda. A republican senator (yes yes I know, but bear with me) already noted that while this question is more about semantics, it's a critical piece for the editors to claim Al Qaeda was not involved. I know the piece briefly mentioned Al Qaeda's attempts to gain a foothold in Libya, but it already went under the assumption that the militia and the terrorist group were a separate independent entity.
My honest opinion though is that this incident will never be fully realized. Republicans are trying to use this as a witch hunt against Obama's administration and Hillary Clinton. Democrats and liberals use it to portray Republicans and conservatives as being political vultures not only on this tragedy but in general. Obama wants to move on after being thoroughly embarrassed and criticized. Individual actors, chiefly former State employees at the site (or none at all), are using it flame their employers and profit or gain fame from it. Libyans themselves seem to have no coherent single narrative on this incident either.
What's done is done. An ambassador is killed. Politicians, conservatives, and liberals have stretched as much as they can for their benefit. All that matters is for the State Department to learn from this and make sure such incidents never happen again.
Wish I'd read the responses to it before posting.... as in, the internet comments in the commentary sections..?
And as for the "two questions that remain unanswered" (you actually only provided one -- whether Ansar al-Sharia = AQ controlled)... Per the investigation there appears to be no significant link between the local militias involved in the attack and AQ. If the republican senator wants to be taken seriously with his "but but but Al Qaeda!!!" then he ought to provide some, er, you know, evidence.
You did nail it though -- certain lowest common denominator republicans tried to use it as a smear campaign and probably succeeded to some extent since it took so long for a somewhat firm picture to emerge of what actually happened.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.thehypertexts.com/images/israel-palestine_map.jpg)
), maybe close this thread as it is too difficult a topic to discuss, especially if discussing religion is considered too sensitive.
![[image loading]](http://carmelimani.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-washington-dc-1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RA0bJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cvmEV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fqpeE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.atheistcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/somethingdoesnt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/PakistanProtest2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/IranProtests.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/IndonesiaProtests.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/09/15/1226474/762597-protest-turns-violent.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/09/15/1226474/786997-protest-involves-children.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/images/Sydney%20protest.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/newpice.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637564/art-protest3-620x349.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637592/art-protest8-620x349.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.smh.com.au/2012/09/15/3637578/art-353-1protest7-300x0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/000/681/what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg)
