Time for the protests to end. [Archive]

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 20:10

I think this has gone on long enough.

Saudi Cleric Demands Trial Over Drawings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings

Muslims rally in Europe as worldwide cartoon protests rage on
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060211/ts_afp/europeislammedia_060211113316

I was starting to believe the religion could be one of peace, love, and tolerance. I was starting to think the radicals might have hijacked the religion. However, all of these demonstrations, calls for killing people, and the burning of Embassies and missions has convinced me the religion is one of intolerance and expects the rest of the world to conform to its beliefs.

It is time for them to realize those cartoons, although offensive were nothing more than cartoons. It is time for them to realize that some of the world has freedom of speech, press, and expression. It is time for them to realize the whole world does not and does not have to conform to their beliefs. It is time for them to move on with their lives.

End of rant.

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:14

I was starting to believe the religion could be one of peace, love, and tolerance. I was starting to think the radicals might have hijacked the religion. However, all of these demonstrations, calls for killing people, and the burning of Embassies and missions has convinced me the religion is one of intolerance and expects the rest of the world to conform to its beliefs.

It is time for them to realize those cartoons, although offensive were nothing more than cartoons. It is time for them to realize that some of the world has freedom of speech, press, and expression. It is time for them to realize the whole world does not and does not have to conform to their beliefs. It is time for them to move on with their lives.

End of rant.

Are you talking about Christianity or Islam or what?

The Half-Hidden

11-02-2006, 20:16

Safalra

11-02-2006, 20:16

I was starting to believe the religion could be one of peace, love, and tolerance. I was starting to think the radicals might have hijacked the religion. However, all of these demonstrations, calls for killing people, and the burning of Embassies and missions has convinced me the religion is one of intolerance and expects the rest of the world to conform to its beliefs.
The protests in London were peaceful:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

(Posters included 'United against Islamophobia' and 'United against incitement' - hardly calls for murder.)

Kibolonia

11-02-2006, 20:18

Just thought I'd share.
Are you talking about Christianity or Islam or what?
This made me laugh out loud. It just did. :)

[NS]Simonist

11-02-2006, 20:18

To my personal experience, there isn't even much of a sense of religious indignation over in the States, from any of the Muslims I know. My sister tells me that one of the mosques (sp) in her area held a bit of a spiritual "protest", but they all just spent a day in there, apparently discussing and praying for a peaceful end to everything, then they had a newsconference.

Yay for Midwestern Muslims.

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 20:18

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:19

The protests in London were peaceful:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm

(Posters included 'United against Islamophobia' and 'United against incitement' - hardly calls for murder.)

Insofar as "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" is peaceful, and dressing as a suicide bomber denotes a peaceful protest.

Utracia

11-02-2006, 20:19

Continuing these protests isn't going to help their cause any. Muslims have made their point and the world knows how they feel on the subject. Should newspapers decide to show more of these cartoons in the future though then it would probably really hit the fan.

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 20:22

Insofar as "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" is peaceful, and dressing as a suicide bomber denotes a peaceful protest.

Gosh, I couldn't find anyone who said "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" on that page. And I'm not sure exactly how a suicide bomber dresses like? Maybe you could tell me. In fact, you should tell the government too - knowing the one way that all suicide bombers dress would be an effective method of helping prevent suicide bombings before they happen.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 20:23

Are you talking about Christianity or Islam or what?

Well, of you look at the links...:eek:

Safalra

11-02-2006, 20:23

Insofar as "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" is peaceful, and dressing as a suicide bomber denotes a peaceful protest.
You know full well I meant today's protests. I was countering Celtlund's argument that all the protesters (and hence all the followers) are violent extremists.

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:24

Well, of you look at the links...:eek:

Well, if you look at the world... :eek:

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 20:25

The protests should continue. People need to be reminded about the fact that there are scumbags out there who believe that they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others and violat free speech protections with threats of violence and acts of arson and vandalism. It helps Western people value their own cultures more. There's been alot of West-bashing from Westerners. They need to see just how bad the alternative "civilizations" can be.

The Nazz

11-02-2006, 20:30

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:32

Gosh, I couldn't find anyone who said "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" on that page. And I'm not sure exactly how a suicide bomber dresses like? Maybe you could tell me. In fact, you should tell the government too - knowing the one way that all suicide bombers dress would be an effective method of helping prevent suicide bombings before they happen.

Dear lord, we need a smiley denoting utter moronity. In the British protests the degerate protesters did indeed advocate "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" on posters, whilst one protestor dressed with suicide bombing costume (a waist coat designed to carry explosives) in London. The very same protestor was a convicted drug dealer and immigrant. Thank you PC culture.

Priggdom

11-02-2006, 20:33

all im sayin is some people may be drawin offensive pictures.
and some extremist muslims are beheading people for their peaceful work?

Which one should everyone be protesting against?

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 20:35

Dear lord, we need a smiley denoting utter moronity. In the British protests the degerate protesters did indeed advocate "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" on posters, whilst one protestor dressed with suicide bombing costume (a waist coat designed to carry explosives) in London. The very same protestor was a convicted drug dealer and immigrant. Thank you PC culture.
Yep. His name was Omar Kayam. Like the Persian poet dude. I posted a thread about it earlier this week but it only got like three responses.

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:36

Yep. His name was Omar Kayam. Like the Persian poet dude. I posted a thread about it earlier this week but it only got like three responses.

Uh huh, surprising how selective people are as to being offended.

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:37

Dear lord, we need a smiley denoting utter moronity. In the British protests the degerate protesters did indeed advocate "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" on posters, whilst one protestor dressed with suicide bombing costume (a waist coat designed to carry explosives) in London. The very same protestor was a convicted drug dealer and immigrant. Thank you PC culture.

godhatesamerica.com

Look, some Christians are being douches. They must all be douches and their religion is one of intolerance.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 20:37

You know full well I meant today's protests. I was countering Celtlund's argument that all the protesters (and hence all the followers) are violent extremists.

I never said, "all the protesters are violent extremists." From all that I have read in the press (many sources) for several days, it appears that most Muslims are intolerant and expect the rest of the world to conform to their belief. These protests have taken place all over the world.

I have never seen such protests by any other religious group over cartoons that they found insulting. I have never seen any other religious group burn buildings or call for the killing of anyone over insulting cartoons.

Several years ago, a bar in Tulsa, OK printed a picture of St. Patrick that the Irish-Catholic community found very insulting. What did they do? They called the bar, told them they found the picture insulting, and then got on with their lives.

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:38

godhatesamerica.com

Look, some Christians are being douches. They must all be douches and their religion is one of intolerance.

Where on earth did you find the means within my post to make such an assertion?

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 20:39

Dear lord, we need a smiley denoting utter moronity. In the British protests the degerate protesters did indeed advocate "Those who insult Islam must be massacred" on posters, whilst one protestor dressed with suicide bombing costume (a waist coat designed to carry explosives) in London. The very same protestor was a convicted drug dealer and immigrant. Thank you PC culture.

I guess it must be PC culture that you can read the signs on this picture:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41321000/jpg/_41321450_muslimrally2_getty.jpg

And I can't.

Must be the PC culture just doesn't hand out fucking microscopes to it's followers.

"Moronity" indeed.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 20:41

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:42

Where on earth did you find the means within my post to make such an assertion?

"Thank you PC culture."

So "PC culture" means you don't let a few douches colour your view of the rest, or what? How is that bad?

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:42

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:43

"Thank you PC culture."

So "PC culture" means you don't let a few douches colour your view of the rest, or what? How is that bad?

Read the below.

Kamsaki

11-02-2006, 20:44

Try the pc culture that affords Muslim's the right to protest such cartoons, and therein advocate the slaughter of anti-Islamic groups, whilst threatening white British citizens with arrest for lambasting the protestors, and only arresting Mr. Abdullah hassam-hassam al bombo after a concerted public campaign over several days.
Saturday's one was peaceful. They're entirely going for the whole "Stop the Islamophobia" approach.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 20:44

godhatesamerica.com

Look, some Christians are being douches. They must all be douches and their religion is one of intolerance.

I have yet to see any Christian, Jew, or any other religion have a worldwide protest, burn down buildings, and call for the killing of people over a cartoon or picture they found offensive to their religion.

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 20:47

Saturday's one was peaceful. They're entirely going for the whole "Stop the Islamophobia" approach.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm

And what justification could we possibly have for Islamophobia? One does wonder as to 9/11, 7/7, Israel, Sheik Abu Hamsa et al no?

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:49

I have yet to see any Christian, Jew, or any other religion have a worldwide protest, burn down buildings, and call for the killing of people over a cartoon or picture they found offensive to their religion.

Wow, you really this ignorant of history as well as current events? You're going to stand there and claim that Christians haven't been having hissy fits over Maplethorpe, or that art installation with the crucifix in a jar of urine, or, to take a Swedish example, Ecce Homo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29)

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 20:50

Well, if you look at the world... :eek:
. . . You'll see that Christians are nowhere near this crazy. Christianity got most of this shit out of its system during the Inquisiton and Crusades. Now, they're pretty casual about the whole thing, and Jesus can be dunked in a bottle of human urine without anyone doing much more than yawning.

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:51

And what justification could we possibly have for Islamophobia? One does wonder as to 9/11, 7/7, Israel, Sheik Abu Hamsa et al no?

The inquisition, the Dark Ages, abortion clinic bombings, Timothy McVeigh, Fred Phelps, condom perforations in Africa...

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:52

. . . You'll see that Christians are nowhere near this crazy. Christianity got most of this shit out of its system during the Inquisiton and Crusades. Now, they're pretty casual about the whole thing, and Jesus can be dunked in a bottle of human urine without anyone doing much more than yawning.

I would hardly call death threats against the artist "casual yawning." And since we are apprently to judge all people by the acts of few, then Christianity should get the same treatment.

Santa Barbara

11-02-2006, 20:53

Try the pc culture that affords Muslim's the right to protest

I know. Right to assemble, right to free speech.. where will this political correctedness stop? Next thing you know, women will be allowed to vote!

such cartoons, and therein advocate the slaughter of anti-Islamic groups, whilst threatening white British citizens with arrest for lambasting the protestors, and only arresting Mr. Abdullah hassam-hassam al bombo after a concerted public campaign over several days.

I still didn't see the "advocate the slaughter" bit in that article. But I'm starting to think you don't little things like facts interfere when you're frothing up to a good, sandnigga-killin' rage.

Pompous world

11-02-2006, 20:54

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 20:57

I guess it must be PC culture that you can read the signs on this picture:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41321000/jpg/_41321450_muslimrally2_getty.jpg

And I can't.

Must be the PC culture just doesn't hand out fucking microscopes to it's followers.

"Moronity" indeed.

Try this:

http://www.channel4.com/news/images/feed/Britain_teaser1658465_160x120.jpg

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2006-2-5-natcartoon.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.today.reuters.co.uk/misc/genImage.aspx%3Furi%3D2006-02-04T074926Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOP_2_PICTURE0.jpg%26resize%3Dother&imgrefurl=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D2006-02-04T074931Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-CARTOONS-1.xml&h=116&w=148&sz=6&tbnid=0YJ4_I6eSa5vXM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=90&hl=en&start=24&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMuslims%2Bprotest%2Bcartoon%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lrN%3D%26c2coff%3D1%2 6sa%3D

Fass

11-02-2006, 20:58

Try this:

http://www.channel4.com/news/images/feed/Britain_teaser1658465_160x120.jpg

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_images/2006-2-5-natcartoon.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.today.reuters.co.uk/misc/genImage.aspx%3Furi%3D2006-02-04T074926Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOP_2_PICTURE0.jpg%26resize%3Dother&imgrefurl=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D2006-02-04T074931Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-CARTOONS-1.xml&h=116&w=148&sz=6&tbnid=0YJ4_I6eSa5vXM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=90&hl=en&start=24&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMuslims%2Bprotest%2Bcartoon%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lrN%3D%26c2coff%3D1%2 6sa%3D

Sat Feb 4, (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.today.reuters.co.uk/misc/genImage.aspx%3Furi%3D2006-02-04T074926Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOP_2_PICTURE0.jpg%26resize%3Dother&imgrefurl=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D2006-02-04T074931Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-CARTOONS-1.xml&h=116&w=148&sz=6&tbnid=0YJ4_I6eSa5vXM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=90&hl=en&start=24&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMuslims%2Bprotest%2Bcartoon%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lrN%3D%26c2coff%3D1%2 6sa%3D)

Saturday, 11 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm)

Is it really that hard to keep two different events seperate? Even by reading your own link?

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 21:00

I know. Right to assemble, right to free speech.. where will this political correctedness stop? Next thing you know, women will be allowed to vote!

I still didn't see the "advocate the slaughter" bit in that article. But I'm starting to think you don't little things like facts interfere when you're frothing up to a good, sandnigga-killin' rage.

Firstly, I apologise for encorporating the protest term, a misnomer, it was more the acceptance of inciting racial hatred and death by the authorities, and the refusal of the press to publish the cartoons, for fear of reprisal and offending the Islamic immigrants in Britain.

As for the "Butcher those who insult Islam" bill board, I am presently attempting to locate it, since it is absent in the BBC archives (oddly), althoug it was profiled and deplored by the BBC in newsnight with the head of Ukip.

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 21:02

Qwystyria

11-02-2006, 21:08

protests are ok. burning embassies and bowing into fundamentalist pressure is not. If muslims were secure in their religion they wouldnt be outraged by such cartoons. Moreover, muslims living in europe are going to have to integrate and realize that everything is up for criticism including their religion. Its democracy after all.

Bingo. They just need to get over themselves. Cartoonists make fun of everything else, but suddently, ONE thing is verboten? I don't think so. I mean, I've seen TONS of political cartoons that make fun of things I believe in, and I don't protest. Just get over it.

Fass

11-02-2006, 21:08

Thankyou so much, I was having considerable trouble locating the above.

And they still remain irrelevant to the protests Safalra linked to. You've yet to explain why you get to use a protest where they were being douches to prove they're all douches, and Safalra can't use a protest where they're not being douches to prove that they aren't all douches.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 21:09

I would hardly call death threats against the artist "casual yawning."
Compared to burning down embassies and weeks of violent protest, yes a few death threats are drops in the pond. There is also the degree of the act to consider. Last time I checked, Muhammed=/=Godhead of Islam.
And since we are apprently to judge all people by the acts of few, then Christianity should get the same treatment.
There is also the matter of proportion. More muslims are acting with greater aggression in reaction to a lesser slight.

Fass

11-02-2006, 21:11

Compared to burning down embassies and weeks of violent protest, yes a few death threats are drops in the pond.

Yeah, all those Christian abortion clinic bombings are really a drop in the pond. Because you know, when Christians do it, it's just the acts of a few extremists. When Muslims do it, it's the acts of the mainstream.

There is also the matter of proportion. More muslims are acting with greater aggression in reaction to a lesser slight.

Oh, so you've somehow devised a way to measure all this? Because you can't be basing this statement on conjecture and personal bias and anecdotes, can you?

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 21:15

And they still remain irrelevant to the protests Safalra linked to. You've yet to explain why you get to use a protest where they were being douches to prove they're all douches, and Safalra can't use a protest where they're not being douches to prove that they aren't all douches.

At no point have I actually made such an assertion. However, given the plethora of riots and reactions in the Islamic world, I would assert that the majority of Muslims are overly fanatical and concerned with their faith.

Drunk commies deleted

11-02-2006, 21:16

The inquisition, the Dark Ages, abortion clinic bombings, Timothy McVeigh, Fred Phelps, condom perforations in Africa...
Let's get our facts straight. Tim McVeigh was protesting the BATF's attacks on the Branch Davidian compound and the Ruby Ridge compound. He was using terrorism not for religious, but for revolutionary political purposes.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 21:16

Yeah, all those Christian abortion clinic bombings are really a drop in the pond. Because you know, when Christians do it, it's just the acts of a few extremists. When Muslims do it, it's the acts of the mainstream.
We were talking about urine-jesus, thus, my statements don't apply to this.
In relation to the Clinic bombings, the bombers are acting as "Pro-Lifers", not as Christians. It is a matter of hats, these protestors are wearing their Muslim hats.
Oh, so you've somehow devised a way to measure all this? Because you can't be basing this statement on conjecture and personal bias and anecdotes, can you?
Maybe I looked at the basic priniciple (Insult to Godhead > Insult to Chief Prophet), at the degree of actions done (Embassy burning and Death Threats > Death Threats) and the numbers of people reported to be involved in them? Or is it just my personal bias which says that burning things is bad and that insults directed at a godhead are more disagreeable then insulting someone who is merely rather top-notch.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 21:31

In relation to the Clinic bombings, the bombers are acting as "Pro-Lifers", not as Christians. It is a matter of hats, these protestors are wearing their Muslim hats.
Actually, most are acting as "Christian" first, that dictating their pro-life stance...Hence the chants saying things like "baby killers burn in hell".

Incidentally, I find it odd that while few condemn the cartoon or cartoonist, many seem quick to say that Muslims should just "get over it", that their protests are uncalled for. In the case of violence, I agree. But that has been, by and large, isolated (Look at how many protests are occuring, then how many have had true violence.) In a fun little twist of irony, the same laws that protect the cartoonist to say what he wants allow these Muslims their rights to protest (peacefully). Not a single person has the right to tell someone they cannot be offended, and not a single person has the right to prohibit them from protesting and/or demanding an apology. People have the right to feel offended, same as people have the right to offend. That isn't an idea that came with the "pc culture".

Fass

11-02-2006, 21:33

We were talking about urine-jesus, thus, my statements don't apply to this.
In relation to the Clinic bombings, the bombers are acting as "Pro-Lifers", not as Christians. It is a matter of hats, these protestors are wearing their Muslim hats.

So, let me get this correctly. All we have to do is refer to these particular Muslims who do this with another name, like, say "Pro-Prophets" and they'd cease to be regarded as Muslims by you and their religion wouldn't be tainted by their actions? Well, that's just super. :) If it works to get you to let the Christians off the hook, then it should work for Muslims.

Maybe I looked at the basic priniciple (Insult to Godhead > Insult to Chief Prophet), at the degree of actions done (Embassy burning and Death Threats > Death Threats) and the numbers of people reported to be involved in them? Or is it just my personal bias which says that burning things is bad and that insults directed at a godhead are more disagreeable then insulting someone who is merely rather top-notch.

You've yet to demonstrate figures to support you allegation that more Muslims than Christians get their knickers in a twist when their religion is insulted, or how Embassy bombings are more representative of Islam than abortion clinic bombings are of Christians.

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 21:35

So, let me get this correctly. All we have to do is refer to these particular Muslims who do this with another name, like, say "Pro-Prophets" and they'd cease to be regarded as Muslims by you and their religion wouldn't be tainted by their actions? Well, that's just super. :) If it works to get you to let the Christians off the hook, then it should work for Muslims.

You've yet to demonstrate figures to support you allegation that more Muslims than Christians get their knickers in a twist when their religion is insulted, or how Embassy bombings are more representative of Islam than abortion clinic bombings are of Christians.

Why on earth are you so excrutiatingly, tediously liberal and negative? I daresay that herein you have merely attempted to contradict and oppose the posts of others, not made personal assertions.

H N Fiddlebottoms VIII

11-02-2006, 21:40

So, let me get this correctly. All we have to do is refer to these particular Muslims who do this with another name, like, say "Pro-Prophets" and they'd cease to be regarded as Muslims by you and their religion wouldn't be tainted by their actions? Well, that's just super. :) If it works to get you to let the Christians off the hook, then it should work for Muslims.
No, but if they started calling themselves "Anti-Danes", then they'd be representative of a splinter sect of "Anti-Danites" who blow up Danish things because they feel that the Danes must suffer.

And with that, I'm gone. I have better purposes for my Saturday afternoon then argue with embittered Swedes.

Fass

11-02-2006, 21:40

Why on earth are you so excrutiatingly, tediously liberal and negative?

It's a gift, I know. Oh, and what's liberal about applying the same wide brush you have been using to paint Muslims one way to depict, say, Christians in the same mannor? There is something liberal about exposing how full of it you are when you refuse to apply the same standard to all religions, perhaps even your own? And here I was, thinking liberalism was an economic ideology having to do with free markets and invisible hands and 19th century economists and philosofers...

I daresay that herein you have merely attempted to contradict and oppose the posts of others, not made personal assertions.

*gasp* You mean to say I've not let your poppycock go uncontradicted? How dare I?!?

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 21:43

It's a gift, I know. Oh, and what's liberal about applying the same wide brush you have been using to paint Muslims one way to depict, say, Christians in the same mannor? There is something liberal about exposing how full of it you are when you refuse to apply the same standard to all religions, perhaps even your own? And here I was, thinking liberalism was an economic ideology having to do with free markets and invisible hands and 19th century economists and philosofers...

*gasp* You mean to say I've not let your poppycock go uncontradicted? How dare I?!?

Without counter assertions, no, in a debate you ought not to, it is bad form and technique.

As for christianity, once more I do implore you to fing evidence of my affinity to, or love for, that faith. I dislike all religion, since it is, and I shuuder to use any left wing term, "the opiate of the masses", however, in the sentiment of Napoleoon, it is useful for pacifying and repressing a populace.

Keruvalia

11-02-2006, 21:44

protests are ok. burning embassies and bowing into fundamentalist pressure is not. If muslims were secure in their religion they wouldnt be outraged by such cartoons. Moreover, muslims living in europe are going to have to integrate and realize that everything is up for criticism including their religion. Its democracy after all.

I've asked this before, and I'm going to ask it again and maybe, just maybe one of you will pull your head out of your rectum long enough to answer me:

What did I do?

Fass

11-02-2006, 21:45

No, but if they started calling themselves "Anti-Danes", then they'd be representative of a splinter sect of "Anti-Danites" who blow up Danish things because they feel that the Danes must suffer.

See - all they have to do is get a nice little moniker like Christians have for your double standard not to apply.

And with that, I'm gone. I have better purposes for my Saturday afternoon then argue with embittered Swedes.

Yes, I do understand you want to be running along now. Would have saved us some time had you done it earlier and spared us your habitual hypocrisy and inability to defend it.

Fass

11-02-2006, 21:49

Without counter assertions, no, in a debate you ought not to, it is bad form and technique.

Yes, how dare I poke holes in your assertions? It's not like debates include undermining of arguments, or anything. How dare I be so dastardly and aloof as to call you on your gobbledegook?!

As for christianity, once more I do implore you to fing evidence of my affinity to, or love for, that faith. I dislike all religion, since it is, and I shuuder to use any left wing term, "the opiate of the masses", however, in the sentiment of Napoleoon, it is useful for pacifying and repressing a populace.

Well, then, it shouldn't bother you at all to claim abortion clinic bombers or people like Fred Phelps are representative of Christianity, now should it? Or, do you somehow manage to realise the absurdity of such claims when applied to something else than Islam?

The blessed Chris

11-02-2006, 21:52

Yes, how dare I poke holes in your assertions? It's not like debates include undermining of arguments, or anything. How dare I be so dastardly aloof in calling you on your gobbledegook?!

Well, then, it shouldn't bother you at all to claim abortion clinic bombers or people like Fred Phelps are representative of Christianity, now should it? Or, do you somehow manage to realise the absurdity of such claims when applied to something else than Islam?

Once more, in the context of a debate, the negation, however poor, of an argument, however good, bereft of counter assertion is bad form and illegal.

Actually, I would to an extent, and those elements of a religion not fundamentalist or zealous, generally engender intellectual devolution, indoctrination and an imposition upon personal liberties.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 21:57

Saturday's one was peaceful. They're entirely going for the whole "Stop the Islamophobia" approach.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4704396.stm

"Symbol of freedom." Yeah, right as long as it is not freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,...

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:00

Wow, you really this ignorant of history as well as current events? You're going to stand there and claim that Christians haven't been having hissy fits over Maplethorpe, or that art installation with the crucifix in a jar of urine, or, to take a Swedish example, Ecce Homo? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29)

They did not hold demonstrations world wide, they did not burn down buildings, and they did not call for death to those who did those things.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:01

"Symbol of freedom." Yeah, right as long as it is not freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion,...
despite that you are doing basically the same thing as them?

they didn't like a cartoon. they are speaking out against it.
you don't like them speaking out against it. You are speaking out against it.

sucks when those freedoms turn out to be a two way street, eh?

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:04

Once more, in the context of a debate, the negation, however poor, of an argument, however good, bereft of counter assertion is bad form and illegal.

Oh, that somehow matters here because...? And that somehow makes the holes less evident because...? Please, don't tell me you're just whining about my lack of support for Islam? I'm an atheist, remember. I'm not in the habit of supporting religion. I am in the habit, though, in calling out BS when I see it.

Actually, I would to an extent, and those elements of a religion not fundamentalist or zealous, generally engender intellectual devolution, indoctrination and an imposition upon personal liberties.

Well, it's nice to know the absurdity of your claims remains hidden to you even when so apparent.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:07

The inquisition, the Dark Ages, abortion clinic bombings, Timothy McVeigh, Fred Phelps, condom perforations in Africa...

The inquisitin and Dark Ages are ancient history, unless you are suggesting the Muslims are living in the Dark Age this is not a good example.

Abortion clinic bombings are the result of what individuals have done as was Timithoy McVeigh and Phelps, and were not condoned by most religous leaders. What is happening in the Muslim world now is a movement by a majority of Muslims and is condoned by both the religious leaders and political leaders.
So, your comparison has no validity.

I haven't the slighest knowledge of the African condom thing.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:07

They did not hold demonstrations world wide, they did not burn down buildings, and they did not call for death to those who did those things.

Umm, they bombed things, and they did in fact have large protests, and did in fact call for the murder of those people. Even sent them death threats directly. So, all Christians are like them, no? And Christianity is all about these bombings and protests and death wishes, no? A religion of intolerance, no?

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:09

I would hardly call death threats against the artist "casual yawning." And since we are apprently to judge all people by the acts of few, then Christianity should get the same treatment.

From what I have seen in the news on the internet, TV, and radio the current demonstrations are not the acts of a "few."

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:11

The inquisitin and Dark Ages are ancient history, unless you are suggesting the Muslims are living in the Dark Age this is not a good example.

Abortion clinic bombings are the result of what individuals have done as was Timithoy McVeigh and Phelps, and were not condoned by most religous leaders. What is happening in the Muslim world now is a movement by a majority of Muslims and is condoned by both the religious leaders and political leaders.
So, your comparison has no validity.

I haven't the slighest knowledge of the African condom thing.
These attacks and such by muslims...are they being carried out by something other than individuals? Are they not making their individual choices? Were there not Christian religious leaders who have spoken FOR the attacks of McVeigh and abortion centers?
Islam is the second largest religion in the world, iirc. The actions of a few hundred, while significant, does not qualify as a majority.

oh, and iirc, the "african condom thing" was official church policy in many areas..maybe fass can validate/correct me on that?

Katurkalurkmurkastan

11-02-2006, 22:12

Magdha

11-02-2006, 22:12

In response to the "African condoms" part, that has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Many Africans oppose birth control because they want as many children as possible, so they can increase the number of members of their tribe. This is especially true in many African nations where tribalism is a huge issue.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:14

these comparisons of christianity's past and islam's present are irrelevant. You are implying that they should be allowed to evolve through the same processes that christianity did... since nice, happy Europe came out of it, it will all end nicely eventually, right? Come on, just another 500 years, right? And then we'll all be friends!

um. No.
many of these actions were very reacent. African perforation and condemnation of condoms, abortion clinic bombings, fred phelps, resisting the acceptance of condoms as a prevention against STD's and the continued discrimination against women and gays are hardly "ancient"...hell, they are hardly even history.

edit: oh, and the whole preist molestation thing.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:16

In response to the "African condoms" part, that has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Many Africans oppose birth control because they want as many children as possible, so they can enlarge the members of their tribe. This is especially true in many African nations where tribalism is a huge issue.
want to place a bet on that? Church leaders have publicly and vocally condemned the use of condoms, right up to the Vatican.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:16

The inquisitin and Dark Ages are ancient history, unless you are suggesting the Muslims are living in the Dark Age this is not a good example.

Well, 9/11 is history, too. I've yet to see you be very specific in time frame references on when we let entire religions off the hook for things its followers have done.

Abortion clinic bombings are the result of what individuals have done as was Timithoy McVeigh and Phelps, and were not condoned by most religous leaders.

Ahuh. So when Christians do it, it's "individuals." When Muslims do it, it's all of them and their mean old religion, too?

What is happening in the Muslim world now is a movement by a majority of Muslims and is condoned by both the religious leaders and political leaders.

BS.

So, your comparison has no validity.

The only thing invalid here are your assertions.

I haven't the slighest knowledge of the African condom thing.

Christian organisations have been spreading misinformation about condoms and even gone so far as to poke holes in them to punish people for having sex. The Catholic church and its African bishops have been time and time again been implicated in undermining HIV prevention by lying to the populace or simply religiously barring them from using the only viable way they can protect themselves from the HIV virus. They have been working very hard to push their anti-condom agenda and in so doing bear an enourmous responsibility for the spread of HIV in Africa. So, umm, all Christians want black people to die of AIDS, because these particular ones have been working for that to happen, no?

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:17

Sat Feb 4, (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.today.reuters.co.uk/misc/genImage.aspx%3Furi%3D2006-02-04T074926Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOP_2_PICTURE0.jpg%26resize%3Dother&imgrefurl=http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx%3Ftype%3DtopNews%26storyID%3D2006-02-04T074931Z_01_L03605412_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RELIGION-CARTOONS-1.xml&h=116&w=148&sz=6&tbnid=0YJ4_I6eSa5vXM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=90&hl=en&start=24&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMuslims%2Bprotest%2Bcartoon%26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lrN%3D%26c2coff%3D1%2 6sa%3D)

Saturday, 11 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm)

Is it really that hard to keep two different events seperate? Even by reading your own link?

The links I gave in the original post were given for the purpose of indicating that the protests have been going on long enough and to show that some of the Muslim leaders are calling for a trial for the people who drew and published the cartoons.

You appear to be denying that any of the demonstrations over the past couple of weeks have been violent and called for the death of the people who drew and published the cartoons. Are you denying that?

Also, if the people were tried in Saudi Arabia, they would be tried under the Shira Law. Under that law, what is the penalty for their "crime."

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:19

From what I have seen in the news on the internet, TV, and radio the current demonstrations are not the acts of a "few."

Yup, those Christians have certainly been getting around in the evil doing. I still contend they are few of all Christians out there. You assert otherwise?

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:22

edit: oh, and the whole preist molestation thing.

Oh, yeah - don't forget that! The Vatican even tried to conceal that and let the people who did off the hook. So, umm, all Christians must be pedophiles, no? I mean, if all Muslims must be terrorists and arsonists because of the actions of a few, so must all Christians.

DHomme

11-02-2006, 22:23

Yeah. I don't get it- you publish a few pictures repeatedly saying that all muslims terrorists and suddenly a whole buncha people are pissed off! whodathunkit?

Myuridia

11-02-2006, 22:24

The protests are getting out of hand. Sure, the newspapers and cartoonists should apologize given the amount of protests have been staged. But I think that those protesting should grow some thicker skin. I can't count the number of times I've seen a cartoon insulting or making fun of my religion. Heck, I think they are hilarious sometimes! Cartoons make fun of everything, and I think they should realize that.

I don't have a problem with them doing protests, so long as they don't call for the death of those that oppose their religion/those that offend them, or burn down buildings. I believe the same for Christians too. Its stupid to blow up abortion clinics. I was just curious how a US military instillation in Afghanistan had anything to do with the cartoons when protests tried to seige it earlier this week (I'll look for the link, was a headline I saw on Yahoo!).

Magdha

11-02-2006, 22:24

From what I have seen in the news on the internet, TV, and radio the current demonstrations are not the acts of a "few."

Hell, come to Minneapolis. We have a large population of Muslims, mostly Somalis. I don't see them going bonkers and committing acts of terrorism. Or look at Keruvalia. Most Muslims are extremely gentle, peaceful people.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:27

The links I gave in the original post were given for the purpose of indicating that the protests have been going on long enough and to show that some of the Muslim leaders are calling for a trial for the people who drew and published the cartoons.

And Safalra showed that there have been protests that have done no such things, but have just been to denounce the message of the cartoons. So, why is your anecdote the better one to paint all Muslims with, and not Safalra's?

You appear to be denying that any of the demonstrations over the past couple of weeks have been violent and called for the death of the people who drew and published the cartoons. Are you denying that?

I am not denying that. What I am denying is how you seem to think that it is OK for you to use them to paint all Muslims a certain way, but then, when someone shows other protests that are peaceful and calm, that's somehow inconsequential to Islam as a whole.

Also, if the people were tried in Saudi Arabia, they would be tried under the Shira Law. Under that law, what is the penalty for their "crime."

A USian like yourself is in no position to critique Saudi Arabia for the death penalty, when your country is still as barbaric enough as they are to have it.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 22:29

I'm gonna go ahead and end this idiotic Christian better/worse/ Muslim shit right now.

First off, we aren't talking about Christians, we are talking about crazy fucking Islamofascist extremists who would kill us all if they had the chance.

Secondly, Christians blowing up Abortion Clinics doesn't make it right for Muslims to call death for ANYONE.

Last, but not least, Free Speech > Freedom from getting your feelings hurt.

Fuck all of them that are being violent. All the peaceful protests can go on forever, for all I care. But I will say WHATEVER I want, and if I want to say Mohamed fucks goats, I'll not only draw a fucking cartoon about it, but I'll make a damn full length movie about it.

I'm sick to death of this crap about comparing Christianity and Islam and Judaism. Here's how it is. If they are peaceful, let them worship/protest whatever and whenever the hell they want. If they aren't, kill every motherfucker with a gun or a matchstick.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:32

despite that you are doing basically the same thing as them?

they didn't like a cartoon. they are speaking out against it.
you don't like them speaking out against it. You are speaking out against it.

sucks when those freedoms turn out to be a two way street, eh?

There is nothing wrong with their speaking out against the cartoons. There is something wrong with it when they make death threats and torch buildings.

The protests have been going on for weeks. Isn't it time to say, "We have made out point. We have been heard." and move on?

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:35

I am in the habit, though, in calling out BS when I see it.

Making death threats, kidnapping innocent people, and burning buildings is not BS? :eek:

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:36

I'm gonna go ahead and end this idiotic Christian better/worse/ Muslim shit right now.

First off, we aren't talking about Christians, we are talking about crazy fucking Islamofascist extremists who would kill us all if they had the chance.
as opposed to the crazy christio-fascists who would kill all of them if they had the chance. They point we are getting at is not if christianity is better or worse. We are saying that you cannot judge an entire religion based on the actions of a few...be it islam, christianity, or what have you.

Secondly, Christians blowing up Abortion Clinics doesn't make it right for Muslims to call death for ANYONE.
dead on.

Last, but not least, Free Speech > Freedom from getting your feelings hurt.
ah...but they have a right to have their feelings hurt, and to speak out if and when that happens. Happens every day...it is their right to free speech, just as it is that cartoonists.

Fuck all of them that are being violent. All the peaceful protests can go on forever, for all I care. But I will say WHATEVER I want, and if I want to say Mohamed fucks goats, I'll not only draw a fucking cartoon about it, but I'll make a damn full length movie about it.
go for it. Just as long as you understand the consequences that go with those actions, I say more power to you.
I'm sick to death of this crap about comparing Christianity and Islam and Judaism. Here's how it is. If they are peaceful, let them worship/protest whatever and whenever the hell they want. If they aren't, kill every motherfucker with a gun or a matchstick.
if you are against them calling for the death of people, then why do you call for their deaths?

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:38

There is nothing wrong with their speaking out against the cartoons. There is something wrong with it when they make death threats and torch buildings.

The protests have been going on for weeks. Isn't it time to say, "We have made out point. We have been heard." and move on?
I agree with you on most points...hell, I'd go so far as to say all...but I don't have the authority to say if they have made their point or not...nothings changed, and appearently, they don't feel that they have. If they felt they had, then they would have stopped.

The Nuke Testgrounds

11-02-2006, 22:39

Making death threats, kidnapping innocent people, and burning buildings is not BS? :eek:

No, that's serious shit. It happens all around the whole world. Every day. 24/7. Even in your country.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:39

Making death threats, kidnapping innocent people, and burning buildings is not BS? :eek:

Not to hold all Christians responsible for when Christians do them, but to do so for Muslims, is. That's basically true for any grouping. If you're gonna, say, hold all Saudis responsible for 9/11 as the people who hijacked the planes were Saudi, then you should, say, hold all US service men - heck, all people in the US, period - responsible for Lynndie England's and her supervisors' torture of detainees in Abu Graib, not to mention the Mai Lai massacre. You're allowed to have such absurd views, sure, but be consistent with them - you don't get to pick and choose which grouping you apply the silliness to.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:41

The actions of a few hundred, while significant, does not qualify as a majority.

From all the news stories, photos, etc. these protests are not the actions of a few hundred. They are the actions of several thousand world wide.

So they have had their say. Why not end it and move on? There are more important things in life that violent protest over a few offensive cartoons. Am I missing something here?

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:42

From all the news stories, photos, etc. these protests are not the actions of a few hundred. They are the actions of several thousand world wide.

Out of a religion with a billion followers.

Magdha

11-02-2006, 22:44

From all the news stories, photos, etc. these protests are not the actions of a few hundred. They are the actions of several thousand world wide.

So they have had their say. Why not end it and move on? There are more important things in life that violent protest over a few offensive cartoons. Am I missing something here?

Several thousand Muslims, out of over a billion. In other words, a percent of a percent, or a very tiny minority.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:45

many of these actions were very reacent. African perforation and condemnation of condoms, abortion clinic bombings, fred phelps, resisting the acceptance of condoms as a prevention against STD's and the continued discrimination against women and gays are hardly "ancient"...hell, they are hardly even history.

edit: oh, and the whole preist molestation thing.

So what does all this have to do with the Muslim protest over the cartoons?

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:45

From all the news stories, photos, etc. these protests are not the actions of a few hundred. They are the actions of several thousand world wide.

So they have had their say. Why not end it and move on? There are more important things in life that violent protest over a few offensive cartoons. Am I missing something here?
the protests, yes, are many thousands of people world wide. What I meant was that the violence is only being comit by a relatively small number

Magdha

11-02-2006, 22:46

Out of a religion with a billion followers.

Lol, beat me to it. :p

I posted almost the exact same thing, at the same time you were posting that. *shakes fist in mock anger*

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:47

So what does all this have to do with the Muslim protest over the cartoons?
the same exact argument Fass is making. It is incredibly dense to condemn every single muslim for the actions of individuals whom identify themselves as Muslim...Just as stupid as it would be to condemn every Christian for this list of actions that were carried out by individuals calling themselves Christians, despite the fact that many were done by people who are in power within the structure of Christianity.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:49

So what does all this have to do with the Muslim protest over the cartoons?

So what do the arsons have to do with Islam? If you're gonna say "committed by Muslims" then you'll see why that was relevant.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 22:49

ah...but they have a right to have their feelings hurt, and to speak out if and when that happens. Happens every day...it is their right to free speech, just as it is that cartoonists.
Like I said, I could care less if they protest until they drop. Just as long as it's as peaceful as drawing a cartoon.

go for it. Just as long as you understand the consequences that go with those actions, I say more power to you.
If I consequences, you mean being murdered by Islamofascists, then no, I'm absolutely NOT gonna accept that. I will die in a hail of bullets before I will let some dumbass terrorist tell me what I can and can't say or do (or draw)

if you are against them calling for the death of people, then why do you call for their deaths?
They are calling for the death of cartoonists, I'm calling for the deaths of cold blooded MURDERERS who cut off peoples heads and kidnap innocent aid workers. Can you see a tiny difference between the two?

Magdha

11-02-2006, 22:49

A USian like yourself is in no position to critique Saudi Arabia for the death penalty, when your country is still as barbaric enough as they are to have it.

We only execute people who commit serious crimes (i.e., those who deserve it). Saudi Arabia executes people for such "crimes" as homosexuality. That's barbarism, IMO.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:51

We only execute people who commit serious crimes (i.e., those who deserve it). Saudi Arabia executes people for such "crimes" as homosexuality. That's barbarism, IMO.

Killing people is barbarism, period. You may think yourselves better for the causes you have to kill, but in the end, you are not.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 22:53

Killing people is barbarism, period. You may think yourselves better for the causes you have to kill, but in the end, you are not.
So says you. What, pray tell, gives you such a morally absolute qualification to tell people who is better than who?

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:54

They are calling for the death of cartoonists, I'm calling for the deaths of cold blooded MURDERERS who cut off peoples heads and kidnap innocent aid workers. Can you see a tiny difference between the two?
they are calling for the death of. They have not commited murder. they have not beheaded anyone in these protests that I have heard of. Is their call for death right? no. Does it call for them to be killed themselves? again, no.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 22:55

We only execute people who commit serious crimes (i.e., those who deserve it). Saudi Arabia executes people for such "crimes" as homosexuality. That's barbarism, IMO.
who deserves death?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Taking a life for a crime, regardless of what the crime, is wrong.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 22:57

Well, 9/11 is history, too. I've yet to see you be very specific in time frame references on when we let entire religions off the hook for things its followers have done.

Ahuh. So when Christians do it, it's "individuals." When Muslims do it, it's all of them and their mean old religion, too?

BS.

The only thing invalid here are your assertions.

Obviously, you don't read, or at least pay attention to news. If you did, you would realize the things you mentioned were done either by one or two indiviuals, or a very small number of Christians in a very small area. You would also realize that the current protests by the Muslims are happening all over the world and attended by hundreds and even thousands of people.

By the way, 9/11 has nothing to do with this thread and I have no idea why you even brought it up.

Let me ask you a question? Are you offended by the cartoons? If yes, please also tell me why you are not offended by the anti-Christian symbol on the jeans being sold in Scandinavia and Europe.

I’ll anticipate a question from you; No I am not personally offended by the cartoons, but I can understand how some people might be and it is their right to peacefully speak out against them.

Imperiux

11-02-2006, 22:57

The protests shouldn't have ever started. They weren't offensive or funny. Papers were publishing in full legality their beliefs. Muslims blow us up and we express our disgust. We make a cartoon and they threaten westerners, burn embassies, etc...

I think we know who has more dignity in this world, eh?

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 22:58

they are calling for the death of. They have not commited murder. they have not beheaded anyone in these protests that I have heard of. Is their call for death right? no. Does it call for them to be killed themselves? again, no.
Damn right it does. Because if we dont get rid of the people who want us dead, 9/11 is gonna look like a minor security breach compared to what else they'd like to do. It's really easy for them to stay alive. Just don't start any phrase with "Death to"

Is that so much to ask? Nobody better EVER threatens my fucking life, or the life of my family, directly or indirecty, and think I'm going to ignore it.

Fass

11-02-2006, 22:59

So says you.

Let's have a little example, shall we? Some dictator somewhere goes "oh, well, let's restrict freedom of speech because I don't like hearing the opinions of others." Someone in the West goes "oh, well, let's restrict freedom of speech through hate speech legislation to protect minorities (or whomever)."

Who is better here - the dictator, because he just has the whim, or the Westerner, who is just restricting the freedom of speech of "bad people." None is better - they are both rotten. As are all that still have the death penalty. "But we only kill bad people" makes no difference to what it is you are doing.

What, pray tell, gives you such a morally absolute qualification to tell people who is better than who?

The same thing that gives supporters of government sanctioned murder the ability to stand up and claim they are better than those other murderers?

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 23:01

Damn right it does. Because if we dont get rid of the people who want us dead, 9/11 is gonna look like a minor security breach compared to what else they'd like to do. It's really easy for them to stay alive. Just don't start any phrase with "Death to"

Is that so much to ask? Nobody better EVER threatens my fucking life, or the life of my family, directly or indirecty, and think I'm going to ignore it.
so let me get this straight.

they call for someones death. Therefore, you call for their death.

how is one call for death okay, but the other not? It sounds immature, but "two wrongs don't make a right" springs to mind.

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:02

Is that so much to ask? Nobody better EVER threatens my fucking life, or the life of my family, directly or indirecty, and think I'm going to ignore it.

But they should when you do so to them?

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 23:06

A USian like yourself is in no position to critique Saudi Arabia for the death penalty, when your country is still as barbaric enough as they are to have it.

I am not a USian as there is no such thing. I am an American.

I did not criticize Saudi Arabia for the death penalty; in fact, I did not even mention the death penalty. I did however ask if you knew the penalty for the "crime" the cartoonist would be tried for. I see you do.

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:08

Obviously, you don't read, or at least pay attention to news. If you did, you would realize the things you mentioned were done either by one or two indiviuals, or a very small number of Christians in a very small area. You would also realize that the current protests by the Muslims are happening all over the world and attended by hundreds and even thousands of people.

Again you go: "When Christians do it it's just the actions of individuals, but when Muslims do it, it's the actions of them all."

By the way, 9/11 has nothing to do with this thread and I have no idea why you even brought it up.

I was not the one who brought it up. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10404577&postcount=30) Read your own thread before posting to it, please.

Let me ask you a question? Are you offended by the cartoons? If yes, please also tell me why you are not offended by the anti-Christian symbol on the jeans being sold in Scandinavia and Europe.

I'm not offended by the cartoons in the least.

I’ll anticipate a question from you; No I am not personally offended by the cartoons, but I can understand how some people might be and it is their right to peacefully speak out against them.

And so they have. Most of who did have. And then we had a few who didn't. And you are using the actions of them to paint all the other ones a certain way. But you refuse to do so with other religions, or groupings.

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 23:08

[QUOTE=Man in Black]

Are you always this rude, crude, and socially unacceptable?

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 23:09

Let's have a little example, shall we? Some dictator somewhere goes "oh, well, let's restrict freedom of speech because I don't like hearing the opinions of others." Someone in the West goes "oh, well, let's restrict freedom of speech through hate speech legislation to protect minorities (or whomever)."

Who is better here - the dictator, because he just has the whim, or the Westerner, who is just restricting the freedom of speech of "bad people." None is better - they are both rotten. As are all that still have the death penalty. "But we only kill bad people" makes no difference to what it is you are doing.

Niether is better, unless your arrogant enough to think you are morally superior to people, and should make decisions for them. So do you really think you are morally superior?

The same thing that gives supporters of government sanctioned murder the ability to stand up and claim they are better than those other murderers? So, by your own words, your assertation that the death penalty is wrong is no more viable than the assertation that it is just?
But they should when you do so to them?
I'm calling for the death of people who have already initiated violence upon peaceful persons. What you're suggesting is akin to a suggestion that police officers who arrest murderers are guilty of assault for laying their hands on the suspect to arrest them.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 23:09

QUOTE=Man in Black

Are you always this rude, crude, and socially unacceptable?
Yes I am. Do you have a problem with it?

Incidentally, were you trying to quote me about something?

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:11

I am not a USian as there is no such thing. I am an American.

From South America or North America? Please be more precise.

I did not criticize Saudi Arabia for the death penalty; in fact, I did not even mention the death penalty. I did however ask if you knew the penalty for the "crime" the cartoonist would be tried for. I see you do.

Again, so? The same would have happened with the person who put Christ crucified in a jar of urine if we'd let Christianity have the same power over us - look at the death threats that person recieved. But you've no such problems with other religions or the actions of their extremists.

Laerod

11-02-2006, 23:13

I remember seeing footage of the burning of the embassies, and one thing impressed me. There were muslim clerics trying to stop the people there. There's been plenty peaceful protests in countries where the radicals don't hold a strong position.

Let's try not to forget that.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 23:15

From South America or North America? Please be more precise.

I believe he was referring to THE UNITED STATES OF America, oh whimsical one. :rolleyes:

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:16

Niether is better, unless your arrogant enough to think you are morally superior to people, and should make decisions for them. So do you really think you are morally superior?

I ask you the same question - are you morally superior to someone who kills "bad people" when you yourself kill "bad people"? I am claiming you are not.

So, by your own words, your assertation that the death penalty is wrong is no more viable than the assertation that it is just?

You claim their killing of "bad people" to be unjust, while your killing of "bad people" you claim is just. Now, how are you not "arrogant enough to think you are morally superior to people" when you do that?

I'm calling for the death of people who have already initiated violence upon peaceful persons. What you're suggesting is akin to a suggestion that police officers who arrest murderers are guilty of assault for laying their hands on the suspect to arrest them.

You're calling for the death of "bad people." They're also calling for the death of "bad people." See - you're doing the same thing, but think yourself better for some reason. Why?

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:17

I believe he was referring to THE UNITED STATES OF America, oh whimsical one. :rolleyes:

Oh, so he is a USian?

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 23:21

The Nuke Testgrounds

11-02-2006, 23:21

Pass the blunt please.

:fluffle:

Syniks

11-02-2006, 23:22

I think they should go on. It just proves to the world exactly how insane their vision of Islam really is an what a danger that vision is to humanity as a whole.

IDF

11-02-2006, 23:24

Are you talking about Christianity or Islam or what?
He is talking about the Islamofascists. (It seems every Islamic country is a fascist one anyways.)

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 23:25

But you've no such problems with other religions or the actions of their extremists.

Yes, I do have a problem with extremists, both religious and political.

I want to thank you and Sarkhaan for a very interesting discussion.

Perhaps in the future we can have one on the death penalty. I'm struggling with it.

Kamsaki

11-02-2006, 23:25

You're calling for the death of "bad people." They're also calling for the death of "bad people." See - you're doing the same thing, but think yourself better for some reason. Why?
If I may interject, there is one minor difference, despite both groups doing it out of a fear of attack from the other.

The muslims in question are, by and large, doing it in submission to mob mentality.

MiB came up with his idea by himself in response to theirs.

Take what you will from that. I personally see the whole thing as a stupid replica of Cold War-Esque nameless hostilities where each fears the other as the "Threatening Outsider".

Laerod

11-02-2006, 23:25

He is talking about the Islamofascists. (It seems every Islamic country is a fascist one anyways.)Yes, like Turkey. One of Israel's best friends in the region. Very islamofascist indeed.

Kibolonia

11-02-2006, 23:27

Not to hold all Christians responsible for when Christians do them, but to do so for Muslims, is. That's basically true for any grouping. If you're gonna, say, hold all Saudis responsible for 9/11 as the people who hijacked the planes were Saudi, then you should, say, hold all US service men - heck, all people in the US, period - responsible for Lynndie England's and her supervisors' torture of detainees in Abu Graib, not to mention the Mai Lai massacre. You're allowed to have such absurd views, sure, but be consistent with them - you don't get to pick and choose which grouping you apply the silliness to.
Here's the crux of the matter Fass. Where is the Muslim Hugh Thompson?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/thompson.htm

Where is he? We correct our mistakes, or at least makes efforts to. The Muslim world refuses to be accountable. That's why they deserve the worst of their "morality" focused through the lense of the West's might.

Lt. Calley is one of the great villains in modern US history. His short sentence is one of the great injustices. And he killed far fewer than the Islamists groups in far more understandable circumstances. Yet's he's reviled, and the Islamists are embraced by their communities. There is your difference. They refuse to make Islam unmistakable as a religion of peace. They refuse to make any attempt to resolve the contradiction. They invite the criticism that they're not so different than the extremists from their midst. Until they prove they are, they're not.

They had better find their Hugh Thompson before they have need of a Chief Joseph.

Keruvalia

11-02-2006, 23:27

I think they should go on. It just proves to the world exactly how insane their vision of Islam really is an what a danger that vision is to humanity as a whole.

Heh ... did you need more proof of that?

Celtlund

11-02-2006, 23:28

Yes I am. Do you have a problem with it?

Incidentally, were you trying to quote me about something?

No, I have no problem with rude, crude, and socially unacceptable people. I just consider the source, take notes, and move on. :D

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:29

I personally see the whole thing as a stupid replica of Cold War-Esque nameless hostilities where each fears the other as the "Threatening Outsider".

This has not escaped me. The Red Menace has just been replaced with the Brown Menace, and the fear and war mongering adapted to it.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 23:30

Yes, I do have a problem with extremists, both religious and political.

I want to thank you and Sarkhaan for a very interesting discussion.

Perhaps in the future we can have one on the death penalty. I'm struggling with it.
I'm pretty sure you're the first person I've opposed who has thanked me...

I, for one, thank you as well. I'd be more than willing to discuss death penalty.

The Nuke Testgrounds

11-02-2006, 23:30

He is talking about the Islamofascists. (It seems every Islamic country is a fascist one anyways.)

I thought facism meant that any and all religion was abolished? Exept for facist religion of course.

Laerod

11-02-2006, 23:32

I thought facism meant that any and all religion was abolished? Exept for facist religion of course.Not really. (See Spain under Franco)

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:32

Here's the crux of the matter Fass. Where is the Muslim Hugh Thompson?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/thompson.htm

Where is he? We correct our mistakes, or at least makes efforts to. The Muslim world refuses to be accountable. That's why they deserve the worst of their "morality" focused through the lense of the West's might.

Lt. Calley is one of the great villains in modern US history. His short sentence is one of the great injustices. And he killed far fewer than the Islamists groups in far more understandable circumstances. Yet's he's reviled, and the Islamists are embraced by their communities. There is your difference. They refuse to make Islam unmistakable as a religion of peace. They refuse to make any attempt to resolve the contradiction. They invite the criticism that they're not so different than the extremists from their midst. Until they prove they are, they're not.

They had better find their Hugh Thompson before they have need of a Chief Joseph.

Well, we'll take Keruvalia for one. Or do you honestly wish to claim no Muslims have stood up to oppose terrorism? Really?

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 23:35

Here's the crux of the matter Fass. Where is the Muslim Hugh Thompson?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/thompson.htm

Where is he? We correct our mistakes, or at least makes efforts to. The Muslim world refuses to be accountable. That's why they deserve the worst of their "morality" focused through the lense of the West's might.

Lt. Calley is one of the great villains in modern US history. His short sentence is one of the great injustices. And he killed far fewer than the Islamists groups in far more understandable circumstances. Yet's he's reviled, and the Islamists are embraced by their communities. There is your difference. They refuse to make Islam unmistakable as a religion of peace. They refuse to make any attempt to resolve the contradiction. They invite the criticism that they're not so different than the extremists from their midst. Until they prove they are, they're not.

They had better find their Hugh Thompson before they have need of a Chief Joseph.
I could point out dozens who stand against the actions of terrorists who are muslim, just out of the muslims who I know.
As Fass said, Keruvalia is one right here, within this discussion.
Also, as pointed out, Muslim clerics were there trying to stop people from taking the embassies.

Man in Black

11-02-2006, 23:37

Well, we'll take Keruvalia for one. Or do you honestly wish to claim no Muslims have stood up to oppose terrorism? Really?
Hardly a shining example of acceptance.

Keruvalia

11-02-2006, 23:37

Here's the crux of the matter Fass. Where is the Muslim Hugh Thompson?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/thompson.htm

This sort of thing hasn't been going on very long. Everyone seems to want to make it all out to be some centuries old stuff that no Muslim has ever once stood up against. The brutality and terrorism really is only a couple of decades old. You wonder where the Muslim Hugh Thompson is? Maybe he was born a couple years ago. Time.

We correct our mistakes, or at least makes efforts to.

Actually, most of the time, the West tries to cover up its mistakes, finds a patsy, or shifts blame elsewhere. Make no mistakes about that.

Yet's he's reviled, and the Islamists are embraced by their communities.

Massive difference between "embracing" and "being terrified to stand up to". You ever lived under a warlord? No? Well then you got no room to talk.

They refuse to make Islam unmistakable as a religion of peace.

No they don't. Although you wanting us to take up arms and go off on a wild slaughter spree of those who are hijacking our religion won't exactly make a good argument for that whole "religion of peace" thing, now would it?

Keruvalia

11-02-2006, 23:39

Hardly a shining example of acceptance.

I am extremely accepting and tolerant. I defy you to prove otherwise.

I can already give you two notable exceptions that I refuse to accept or tolerate:

1] Republicans
2] Holier-than-thou Christians

Otherwise, what've you got?

Also, you're just jumping on a Nationalistic bandwagon. I have more reason to hate Islamists than you will ever dream of being able to conceive.

Hard work and freedom

11-02-2006, 23:41

Fass

11-02-2006, 23:43

Hardly a shining example of acceptance.

And he's still at least ten times your better.

Sarkhaan

11-02-2006, 23:44

And he's still at least ten times your better.
understatement of the decade.

Kamsaki

11-02-2006, 23:48

understatement of the decade.
I reckon it comes in second compared to "This thing is stupid", myself.

Gravlen

12-02-2006, 01:17

Have the people who drew the cartoons or who published them for no other reason than to be offensive apologized yet? (One Norwegian paper has, but to my knowledge, that's it.) When the people who started this shit apologize publicly, then it'll be time for the protests to end. If they end before then, then fine, but if they want to protest every day until the cartoonists and the publishers apoligize, that's fine with me.

Jyllands-Postens letter of apology in English (http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646)

Jyllands-Posten's editor has apologized for offending Muslims in comments welcomed by Rasmussen, who himself refused to apologize on behalf of the Danish people.

"These cartoons were not in violation of Danish law but have irrefutably offended many Muslims, and for that we apologize," Carsten Juste wrote in a letter to the Petra news agency in Jordan.

On Tuesday, the Norwegian magazine also expressed its regrets for causing offense but stopped short of issuing an apology.

Magazinet's editor-in-chief, Vebjoern Selbekk, said that the reprinting of the cartoons was "not aimed at provoking" Muslims and that it was justifiable under freedom of expression laws.

"To regret the use of freedom of expression in a democratic society would damage our democratic foundations," he said.

The Norwegian government on Tuesday reiterated that it regretted if Muslims were offended but stressed its belief in fundamental rights.

"We will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees the freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers" print, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told Norwegian daily NTB.

"But I am sorry that this may have hurt many Muslims."

Source (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1888018,00.html)

Later, a clearer apology was issued by the editor of Magazinet:
Editor Vebjørn Selbekk of the Christian weekly Magazinet issued Friday a complete apology for his decision to reprint the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed originally run in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten
Source (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1219937.ece)

As for other papers, (european, american, or others)I haven't heard about any apologies.

From all the news stories, photos, etc. these protests are not the actions of a few hundred. They are the actions of several thousand world wide.

So they have had their say. Why not end it and move on? There are more important things in life that violent protest over a few offensive cartoons. Am I missing something here?

I believe you are. Try looking at the bigger picture - The impression some arabs have that the West is at war with Islam, the governments who don't try to suppress the protesters but rather fan the flames, the fake cartoons produced by some danish imams, some of the power-plays behind the scenes... And probably more things too. Add that to the very real outrage many muslims feel about the cartoons, and you see that the rioting is due to something more than just the pictures.

Greenham

12-02-2006, 01:58

One More Day Was Blown Away
To Heaven Or To Hell
Whose God Is Right? - Whose God Is Wrong?
Who Can Ever Tell?

Wake Up From Your Sleep
Or Go Back To Your Grave
Remember Your Star
Remember Israel

WE DON'T FORGET!

Kibolonia

12-02-2006, 07:14

No they don't. Although you wanting us to take up arms and go off on a wild slaughter spree of those who are hijacking our religion won't exactly make a good argument for that whole "religion of peace" thing, now would it?
You know what, I'd be happy if there was a counter protest that confronted the psychos. Much like what happens with the odd Klan rally in the US. But that's not something the "good muslims" do. Even if I accepted the idea that a people who've chosen to live on their knees aren't at all responsible for the staged protests their government endorses and organizes, I still don't see that in the West.

You know what the Muslims in Seattle had to say at their rally, "Don't blame us. We're not them. Please be more sensitive." Their message was for me. Their message should have been, "You psychos deserve what you get. No one will miss you. Enjoy your CIA provided Cuban vacation. I'm watching and the FBI is on speed dial." One of those messages says, "I'm not trustworthy." the other one says, "I'm will protect my investment."

If there was a Muslim Hugh Thompson (from back in '68 or not), they'd still be talking about him. He'd be either a traitor, or a badass, but they'd still be talking about him. No, their heroes, at least the ones they choose to venerate, are the Calley's. They make sure I know who they are and how much they're loved throughout the Muslim world. None of that is on accident. Wouldn't it be foolish of me to pretend otherwise?

I finished writing the above hours ago, and got side tracked. By the time I'd returned, it was revlealed on the local news that the cleric who ran the mosque where the rally I refered to was held was arrested and charged with diverting funds from the mosque to political and terrorist organizations, and entering the country illegally. It's not a community that makes itself easy to trust.

Callisdrun

12-02-2006, 08:49

If yes, please also tell me why you are not offended by the anti-Christian symbol on the jeans being sold in Scandinavia and Europe.

What jeans are these? Pics?

Oh also, I think the protests are fine if they're conducted in a peaceful, civilized manner. As long as people are just expressing their opinions and not hurting anyone. That's how free speech works. I'm free to make fun of someone's religion if I want to, and they're free to say that they're really offended, and vice versa.

It's only the incidents of violents that have occurred in some places that I find ridiculous and appalling. I mean really, of course people are offended, but someone drawing a cartoon you don't like doesn't mean you get to burn down buildings. Another example of why I dislike religious fundamentalism, because many fundies seem to be have in ridiculous ways as seen in these recent events.

Oh, and for the record, I live in the United States of America, and am an American. Why do I prefer the term "American" to "USian"? Because it's sounds better, is easier to say, and doesn't involve an acronym. ;)

Santa Barbara

12-02-2006, 08:58

You know what, I'd be happy if there was a counter protest that confronted the psychos. Much like what happens with the odd Klan rally in the US. But that's not something the "good muslims" do.

Well, if they did, certain assholes would say, "Look! All them Muslims, they're all protestors! Agitators! Stirring up trouble!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You know what the Muslims in Seattle had to say at their rally, "Don't blame us. We're not them. Please be more sensitive." Their message was for me. Their message should have been, "You psychos deserve what you get. No one will miss you. Enjoy your CIA provided Cuban vacation. I'm watching and the FBI is on speed dial." One of those messages says, "I'm not trustworthy." the other one says, "I'm will protect my investment."

So trustworthiness is bloodthirstiness now?

Saying don't blame us, is not trustworthy? Why, because they're too blame? Because that's just what they would say if they were too blame?

Sounds like their message went in one of your ears and out your ass.

it was revlealed on the local news that the cleric who ran the mosque where the rally I refered to was held was arrested and charged with diverting funds from the mosque to political and terrorist organizations, and entering the country illegally. It's not a community that makes itself easy to trust.

Holy crap? He was ARRESTED?

Well he must be guilty! Fuck, if it's on the news, it must be true! Them Muslims are not to be trusted!

Lydania

12-02-2006, 09:21

So says you. What, pray tell, gives you such a morally absolute qualification to tell people who is better than who?

Fucking ironic, considering your previous statements in this thread. Seriously, you need to sort your shit out.

Syniks

12-02-2006, 15:04

Heavenly Sex

12-02-2006, 15:47

Those protests were already braindead in the first place, so yes, they should really stop now! But as they use these cartoons only as a flimsy excuse to go rallying against the west, I really doubt that is happening anytime soon :rolleyes:

Swallow your Poison

12-02-2006, 16:33

What jeans are these? Pics?
He's talking about Cheap Monday jeans, I think:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10653030/

Weremoose-land

12-02-2006, 16:49

godhatesamerica.com

Look, some Christians are being douches. They must all be douches and their religion is one of intolerance.
OMG. People, this is a very twisted and perverted view of Christianity. Don't listen to these maniacs, this isn't the way we all are. (Or even most of us)

Celtlund

12-02-2006, 17:34

He's talking about Cheap Monday jeans, I think:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10653030/

Yes, those are the ones I was refering to.

Fass

12-02-2006, 18:15

And yet, you are willing to do the same when it comes to "gun control".

Ironic, isn't it?

What? I have a stance on "gun control?" I hate to break it to you, but that is not an issue where I live. Gun control works very well here, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Zolworld

12-02-2006, 19:02

Occasionally I see someone wearing a top which has "Jesus is a ****" written on it. No one protests, although some people may disaprove. The cartoons were not as offensive as that top. Only 2 of them I believe were offensive in any way, the others just portrayed mohammad and thats all.

This insane over reaction only serves to make all muslims look bad. They value their faith more than their humanity. and more than our lives. Perhaps if they stopped protesting and learned to be civil then there would be no need for these cartoons.

And top those who say the artist should apologise, have you seen the cartoons? most of them were about the reactionaries and redicals behaving in exactly the way they are now. No one should apologise for being right.

The Half-Hidden

12-02-2006, 20:47

all im sayin is some people may be drawin offensive pictures.
and some extremist muslims are beheading people for their peaceful work?

Which one should everyone be protesting against?
No need to protest against the latter; we're waging war against them!

And what justification could we possibly have for Islamophobia? One does wonder as to 9/11, 7/7, Israel, Sheik Abu Hamsa et al no?
Oh shut up. None of these prove that most Muslims are bad. Islamophobia is still an irrational fear.

Hate terrorists, not Muslims.

The inquisition, the Dark Ages, abortion clinic bombings, Timothy McVeigh, Fred Phelps, condom perforations in Africa...
I've noticed that you seem to think it's OK to hate Christians but not OK to hate Muslims. (I remember the thread where you congratulated the Iranian government on persecuting Christians.) I think that to hate either one is stupid, but then again I'm not a PC hypocrite.

The inquisition, the Dark Ages - happened a long time ago
abortion clinic bombings - very uncommon
Timothy McVeigh - unrelated to religion
Fred Phelps - a bastard, but he doesn't commit acts of violence

condom perforations in Africa - now this I do have quite a problem with, but since you're on Africa, why not talk about honour killings and FGM?

You've yet to demonstrate figures to support you allegation that more Muslims than Christians get their knickers in a twist when their religion is insulted, or how Embassy bombings are more representative of Islam than abortion clinic bombings are of Christians.
No Christians burned down the embassy of Andres Serrano's country when "Piss Christ" was exhibited.

No Christians burned down the embassy of Elisabeth Ohlson's country when "Ecce Homo" was exhibited. K. G. Hammar even allowed it to be shown in Uppsala Cathedral, did he not?

Sarkhaan

12-02-2006, 20:59

I've noticed that you seem to think it's OK to hate Christians but not OK to hate Muslims. (I remember the thread where you congratulated the Iranian government on persecuting Christians.) I think that to hate either one is stupid, but then again I'm not a PC hypocrite.
you really haven't followed what Fass was arguing, have you? He argued that people should not be judged because they are "muslim" any more than they should because they are "christian". He argued against painting with a wide brush. You seem to have missed everything he argued.

Kibolonia

12-02-2006, 21:43

Well, if they did, certain assholes would say, "Look! All them Muslims, they're all protestors! Agitators! Stirring up trouble!"
Yeah, because that's what everyone says about people who arrange counterprotests to groups advocating widespread violence. If there was a small group of psychos, and a larger group of muslims shouting them down, the message would be clear. Naturally, you resort to laughable hyperbole to explain why that doesn't happen.
So trustworthiness is bloodthirstiness now?
Protecting the psychotic elements, sheltering them, is pretty bloodthirsty. Doing something about it, making life inhospitable for them, insuring that justic (with or without mercy) finds them, is trustworthy. You don't want to see them apprehended and punished. You want them to be free to do what psychos do. You want the terrorists to be sheltered. You're using ridiculous rhetoric in support of that end. If this is what the Muslim community has to offer, it's exactly why the muslim community doesn't deserve to be trusted. We can't afford to.
Saying don't blame us, is not trustworthy? Why, because they're too blame? Because that's just what they would say if they were too blame?
Words are nothing. It's not economically feasible for a bunch of outsiders to seperate the wheat from the chaff in uncooperative cloistered communities. That's what they want. They want the outsiders (who are unwelcome in the community) to solve their internal problems for them without any assistance from the community. They do everything they can to avoid assisting and accountability. That's not trustworthy.
Sounds like their message went in one of your ears and out your ass.

So you've lost this argument then? Very well, I accept your acquiescence. I understood, their message. "No part of this is our problem. The violence is directed not at us, but at the larger community we don't really care at all about, despite the shelter, freedom, and prosperity it affords us. We're not going to contribute in the slightest, but we strenuously object to the prospect of lessening, in anyway, the benefits we love so much, but absolutely refuse to defend."
Holy crap? He was ARRESTED? Well he must be guilty! Fuck, if it's on the news, it must be true! Them Muslims are not to be trusted!
Care to guess, over my whole life, how many officials of Puget Sound Christian churches were arrested, even in part, due to connections with terrorist organizations? (not that I'm any kind of fan of Christianity.) Arrested isn't a conviction, but it's not nothing either. Until Muslims prove through their actions that they are trustworthy, their communities aren't. They refuse the very notion that there is some role for their community to play, some opportunity to make the doubters fools. As it stands, if a Pastor, or what have you, was arrested in due to his connections with terrorists, everyone would be surprised. It happens to an Imam, and the only surprise is that it happened at a specific place, as opposed to at all.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Time for the protests to end.