NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1919223520070719

"LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man."

Your point?

Edit: WOOOT! Thread steal!

If this is to prove the inherently evil nature of religious conservatism, I think the nail went in long ago.

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.

how so? as he hasn't attributed their behaviour to their religion or ethnicity or made the claim that all muslims or kurds behave like this i think you are talking out of your arse as usual.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1919223520070719

"LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man."

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.

Glen Beck, is that you?

This is like the 7th time this exact same story has been posted here this year.

This is what happens when people worship their religion more than their God. :(

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.
DK says this after going to the shoe store to request specialty shoes in the size of "I hate Muslims."

I smell an endlessly circular, 60+ page thread a-coming...

how so? as he hasn't attributed their behaviour to their religion or ethnicity or made the claim that all muslims or kurds behave like this i think you are talking out of your arse as usual.

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

DK says this after going to the shoe store to request specialty shoes in the size of "I hate Muslims."

Looks like I'm not the only one...

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

I'll tell you when you get a job in Utah with 'devoted Atheist' on your resume.

I'll tell you when you get a job in Utah with 'devoted Atheist' on your resume.

Ah, so you can't find one... must be a Muslim thing, eh?

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

They call it 'Capital Punishment'. *nod*

Looks like I'm not the only one...

Reporting news for the sake of news is not the same as reporting news for the sake of inciting hatred.

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

o rly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families.

o rly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html

One. Wow, that's a lot, eh?

Got any more? We get one almost every day from Muslims.

This one sounds like an Arab tradition... so even an Arab Christian could do honor killing.

Any examples of Western Europeans (especially atheists) doing this?

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

Dude - And on May 2, a Christian father in Ramallah killed his 22-year-old daughter after she told him she wanted to marry a Muslim man, triggering demonstrations by both Christian and Muslim women in that city.

Link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/15/MNGAICPIMS1.DTL)

Never underestimate religion, any religion

One. Wow, that's a lot, eh?

Got any more? We get one almost every day from Muslims.

Actually, 12 a year. He just said that.

Actually, 12 a year. He just said that.

And, let's face it, only one was asked for - 200 years? Not even 200 seconds.

I wonder what would happen if one of Fred Phelps' children married a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim or anyone outside his extended family..

o rly?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3149030.stm

This is ONE, not two, because the second one is another Muslim dishonour killing

And I don't think the article I posted even mentions any religion

Actually, 12 a year. He just said that.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

Simply because, until early last century, they mostly went unreported but here's (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/15/MNGAICPIMS1.DTL) a look of life for those who weren't male.

I remember a bunch in South America just recently as well - and really, men murder their wives and daughters all the time - just because they're not codified as 'honour killings' doesn't mean they're not the same.

I understand your point - people defend Arab nations beyond defending as part of the 'we mustn't blame the religion' - it's the way you go about it that offends people though.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

Changing the goal-posts. The criterion were Christians, not "White Christians from Good Families (TM)." And they've provided information on Christian honor killings.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

This topic is threatening my few remaining functioning brain cells, so for their sake, I'll just grin and nod now.

*grins and nods*

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

I'd rather you just shut up....

Hindu honour killings
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/11/stories/2007071160811200.htm

Christian honour killings....
Christians living within parts of Africa and the Near East, such as sections of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, sometimes carry out the crime, as well as some men from some Muslim communities. While violence and discrimination against women is unfortunately widespread across the globe, it is well established that social inequality is a precipatory factor. There is a strong positive correlation between women's social power and a baseline of development, associated with access to basic resources, health care, and human capital, such as literacy. [10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Sikh Honour killing....
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/05/mom_gave_long_distance_order_for_honor_killing_police_say/

Quiet Nodinia, you are ruining DK's Islamophobia rant!

No US Christian Fundamentalist honor killings, I see.

Changing the goal-posts AGAIN. "Christians" was what were stated. Not "US Christian Fundamentalists with magical Jesus powers of DOOOOM."

I'd rather you just shut up....

Hindu honour killings
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/11/stories/2007071160811200.htm

Christian honour killings....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Sikh Honour killing....
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/05/mom_gave_long_distance_order_for_honor_killing_police_say/

No US Christian Fundamentalist honor killings, I see.

Nah, they blow up abortion clinics instead :)

Plus the KKK.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

Africans are arabs?

So nobody got off shooting his wife in texas in the last decade for shooting his wife because he caught her with another man?

Haiti: Article 269 of the Penal Code states that "in the case of adultery as provided for in Article 284, the murder by a husband of his wife and/or her partner, immediately upon discovering them in flagrante delicto in the conjugal abode, is to be pardoned."
In two Latin American countries, similar laws were struck down over the past two decades: according to human rights lawyer Julie Mertus "in Brazil, until 1991 wife killings were considered to be noncriminal 'honor killings'; in just one year, nearly eight hundred husbands killed their wives. Similarly, in Colombia, until 1980, a husband legally could kill his wife for committing adultery."[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

No US Christian Fundamentalist honor killings, I see.

Nah, they blow up abortion clinics instead :)

RO: Muslims are evil vile uncivilized bastards!
Everyone Else: So are most people.
RO: Nuh uh!

No US Christian Fundamentalist honor killings, I see.

Got them goal posts on roller skates have we? Is that a tactic you learnt getting your 'legal degree'?

Nah, they blow up abortion clinics instead :)

Exactly.

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

How about a story about hundreds of people celebrating a brutal double murder of two innocent people because it's "what God would want"?

You're so deliberately obtuse and this is why you're called a racist. If we're going to go after ideologues then we have to attack them all or we really are guilty of prejudice.

You know, like the ideologues that say the terrorism that is in Iraq but wasn't 6 years ago is okay because "it's better over there than here". Or the ideologues that would kill abortionists or gays or muslims or westerners or women or anything. Being a ridiculous, murderous idiot is never acceptable no matter how you excuse it. Even under the guise of "cleansing the world of the ebil", you're still guilty of the exact same thinking that they are.

Exactly.

Which extends their disrespect for other peoples choices outside the family, terrifies those who value freedom of choice and threatens your precious democracy. Funny to think that the ebil moselems account for less deaths due to terrorism than white, american christians. Oh the irony.

But I'm hijacking now. I bid you all farewell in this thread :)

Exactly.

Dude, seriously, this may be the most obviously bad argument I've ever seen.

"Find me one example of an honor killing by Christians"
"No, wait, I mean... find me a whole bunch."
"No, wait, I mean... find me one in the US."
"By atheists."
"Who live in Europe or the UK"
"While the woman they killed was wearing a burka."
"By left-handed people. This guy was left-handed."

"Oh, you mean you can't find several hundred honor killings by Christians in the US who are atheist whose family has lived as Christian for 400 years in Europe while the woman is wearing a burka by left-handed people? You people are pathetic."

The sad part is that I only barely exaggerated there. It's like you're begging to look silly.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

http://www.nextgenleaders.org/Betty%20Williams.pdf

Her Protestant grandfather, a riveter in a Belfast shipyard, was
thrown down the hold of a ship that was under construction simply because
his son was marrying a Catholic woman

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

Ah, so you can't find one... must be a Muslim thing, eh?

Let's see, twice you ask for one.

One. Wow, that's a lot, eh?

Got any more? We get one almost every day from Muslims.

This one sounds like an Arab tradition... so even an Arab Christian could do honor killing.

Any examples of Western Europeans (especially atheists) doing this?

Okay, now one isn't enough. And now it has to Western Europeans (especially atheists). Man, it sure is easy to find atheist Christians.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

Now, they have to have lived as a Christian for 400 years. And be from the UK or "even Europe". I'm not even sure what the hell that means.

No US Christian Fundamentalist honor killings, I see.

Now it has to be in the US and I notice that Buddhist is off the table now.


Nah, they blow up abortion clinics instead :)
Exactly.

And when you get the Christian fundamentalist equivalent to honor killings, you say "exactly" like it supports your point.

This is just classic RO nonsense. One wonders what possible point you could have that is being helped by this ridiculous argument.

Dude, seriously, this may be the most obviously bad argument I've ever seen.

"Find me one example of an honor killing by Christians"
"No, wait, I mean... find me a whole bunch."
"No, wait, I mean... find me one in the US."
"By atheists."
"Who live in Europe or the UK"
"While the woman they killed was wearing a burka."
"By left-handed people. This guy was left-handed."

"Oh, you mean you can't find several hundred honor killings by Christians in the US who are atheist whose family has lived as Christian for 400 years in Europe while the woman is wearing a burka by left-handed people? You people are pathetic."

The sad part is that I only barely exaggerated there. It's like you're begging to look silly.

Jocabia, I'm not singling out Muslims or Arabs for examples of crazy behavior - you'll note that I included Christian Fundamentalists for abortion clinic bombing.

So stuff your racist charge.

I am singling out those cultures in particular as more common examples of honor killing - it occurs in those far, far more often than the others that were listed as examples.

Pakistan is honor killing central - and there's no denying it.

Jocabia, I'm not singling out Muslims or Arabs for examples of crazy behavior - you'll note that I included Christian Fundamentalists for abortion clinic bombing.

So stuff your racist charge.

I am singling out those cultures in particular as more common examples of honor killing - it occurs in those far, far more often than the others that were listed as examples.

Pakistan is honor killing central - and there's no denying it.

You are lying as usual. You challenged people to show similar behavior in Buddhists and Christians. Then you required that they be particular types of Christians (Buddhists no long count) then particular types of murder. You've openly stated that you don't consider these actions to be equal.

The fact is that murder is murder and Muslims don't have a lock on murdering the innocent. They aren't even as practiced at it.

In the US Christianity is behind a plethora of murders and you know it. No one would call you a racist if you were constantly posting any kind of absurdly brutal murder, but you only have a hardon for Muslims.

And in this thread you made it clear that white Christians and Arab Christians aren't the same as far you're concerned. So I think I'll keep my claims of racism right there on the table where they belong as long as you're proving them correct.

Or did you not suggest that you'll only accept evidence that includes western Europeans that have had a family there for 400 years?

What is so sad is that you could just admit you're a racist and move on, but you'd rather lie about it and keep getting caught. If you'd just admit it, we could stop arguing about whether you're racist and get to the point.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

You most certainly are singling out Muslims and Arabs and you've made that explicit.

EDIT: Now this is the part where you run off to some new thread because you think it'll distract people from the point. Whether you admit or not, you've made it clear that you'll only accept that their behavior isn't unique to Muslims if we find WHITE people doing it. You've switched among the various religions, but you've dismissed all people of color as examples and specifically allowed for only white examples, though you'd accept atheists, so your pleas for Christians were rather disingenuous. Here's a tip - if it's not about skin color, how about you don't specifically mention that you're classifying by skin color rather than religion.

I am singling out those cultures in particular as more common examples of honor killing - it occurs in those far, far more often than the others that were listed as examples.



Nope, thats what you're saying now you've been caught by the bollocks.

Ah, classic DK.

i hate all religions. Soo religions suck is that the point?

i hate all religions. Soo religions suck is that the point?

No, its that 'TEH MUZLIMS R TEH EBBILL'. Again.

Jocabia, I'm not singling out Muslims or Arabs for examples of crazy behavior

I think you fooled everyone here then.

I wonder what would happen if one of Fred Phelps' children married a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim or anyone outside his extended family..

QFT!

I wonder what would happen if one of Fred Phelps' children married a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim or anyone outside his extended family..

They'd murder him or her, and then protest their funeral.

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

Ah, so you can't find one... must be a Muslim thing, eh?



One. Wow, that's a lot, eh?

Got any more? We get one almost every day from Muslims.

This one sounds like an Arab tradition... so even an Arab Christian could do honor killing.

Any examples of Western Europeans (especially atheists) doing this?

I think your incosistant asshatary speeks for itself you as for one ... gloat that people cant find one then when shown one you go "only one"

:rolleyes:

I think you fooled everyone here then.

I certainly feel like a mug now.



This one sounds like an Arab tradition... so even an Arab Christian could do honor killing.

Any examples of Western Europeans (especially atheists) doing this?

Oh, so it's the arabs now? Not contend with blaming Islam for domestic violence, now we've established that arabs must have some form of genetic predisposition to murder their daughters.

You don't like logic, do you?

Also, if you are looking for examples of Europeans or Atheists murdering their family members, there are plenty. They do it for different reasons sometimes, but the outcome is the same.

So please, please do be quiet.

The sad part is that I only barely exaggerated there. It's like you're begging to look silly.
DK likes leading with his chin? :p

I don't suppose there has ever been any documented "honour" killings in Italian families?

DK likes leading with his chin? :p

Unfortunately, it never makes any difference. He'll be bitching in some other thread in ten minutes about how people "wrongfully" suggest his rants are racist and willfully pretend this thread never happened.

Nevermind that he openly said that he doesn't consider honor killings to be a Muslim problem but an Arab problem and that he openly required that the only examples given that would dispute that be western europeans who had lived there for 400+ years.

It's not even veiled racism. It's just open and clear racism. Pretending he's not being racist is as honest as when he was pretending he had no connection to DK.

This topic is threatening my few remaining functioning brain cells, so for their sake, I'll just grin and nod now.

*grins and nods*

You have brain cells? I thought you had hundreds of miniature chipmunks in there, churning out the next great prank. :p

I don't suppose there has ever been any documented "honour" killings in Italian families?

It really doesn't matter, honestly. We don't call it an honor killing here when a father catches his daughter in bed with some boy and kills them both or when a man kills his wife so she doesn't leave him. We certainly would if it would grant some level of favor, but since it doesn't, they just call it murder. Somehow murder only matters if it's done for religion and by people with brown skin. The fact that murder is and always has been rampant among white people of all beliefs, and that religion has only ever been offered of as an excuse for violent people to get their violence accepted really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Kimchi will be another thread in a moment crying about Muslims.

Unfortunately, it never makes any difference. He'll be bitching in some other thread in ten minutes about how people "wrongfully" suggest his rants are racist and willfully pretend this thread never happened.

Nevermind that he openly said that he doesn't consider honor killings to be a Muslim problem but an Arab problem and that he openly required that the only examples given that would dispute that be western europeans who had lived there for 400+ years.

It's not even veiled racism. It's just open and clear racism. Pretending he's not being racist is as honest as when he was pretending he had no connection to DK.
All true, especially concerning the racism aspect.

Why does he keep slapping labels on things, knowing full well that they are bullshit and that nobody is buying?

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.

this has nothing to do with Islam.

They'd murder him or her, and then protest their funeral.

Lolz0r!

Jocabia, I'm not singling out Muslims or Arabs for examples of crazy behavior - you'll note that I included Christian Fundamentalists for abortion clinic bombing.

So stuff your racist charge.


I'm not a racist. One of my friends is black.

It really doesn't matter, honestly. We don't call it an honor killing here when a father catches his daughter in bed with some boy and kills them both or when a man kills his wife so she doesn't leave him. We certainly would if it would grant some level of favor, but since it doesn't, they just call it murder. Somehow murder only matters if it's done for religion and by people with brown skin. The fact that murder is and always has been rampant among white people of all beliefs, and that religion has only ever been offered of as an excuse for violent people to get their violence accepted really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Kimchi will be another thread in a moment crying about Muslims.

Very good post. This is something people do not take into account.

One. Wow, that's a lot, eh?

Got any more? We get one almost every day from Muslims.

This one sounds like an Arab tradition... so even an Arab Christian could do honor killing.

Any examples of Western Europeans (especially atheists) doing this?

Kurds aren't arabs, and atheists usually kill strangers, we call them serial killers.

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

Has nobody taught you how to use google, then? Poor boy.


Here's a Christian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.html) one, here's a Sikh (http://itn.co.uk/news/45689c5c65080733e09b18bf37a42472.html) one, here's a Hindu (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157964815.html) one...

I don't think there's a single religion on the planet that regards women as full human beings.

You have brain cells? I thought you had hundreds of miniature chipmunks in there, churning out the next great prank. :p

Soon, they will have no competition left. :p

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.

If you listen to fools [like this guy], the mob rules! - Ronnie James Dio

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.
Sad but true.


People are afraid to criticize Muslim culture because some idiot will call them a racist. Islam is apparently a race now, not a set of beliefs and practises.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1919223520070719

"LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man."

Did she consent to being raped, strangled and stomped on? Because if she didn't protest, apparently, it's A-Ok.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534036

People are afraid to criticize Muslim culture

Oh, since when?

Who's afraid? Let's see a show of hands. Of people who are afraid to "criticize" "Muslim" "culture." Anyone? Bueller?

Bueller?

Those of you who espouse cultural relativism - do you really consider a culture that practices this good and not evil? This is an evil act of an evil culture. And no, I do not blame Islam per se. Islam does not preach the abuse of women, that was never Mohammed's intent (and FYI, I'm not Muslim). This is an aberration that was superimposed on Islam several over a thousand years ago by the tribes that adopted and then adapted Islam to suit their own culture. Culture always trumps religion - you can see the original teachings of all the messiahs and masters changed and sometimes discarded to suit the cultural biases of the converts.

Oh, since when?

Who's afraid? Let's see a show of hands. Of people who are afraid to "criticize" "Muslim" "culture." Anyone? Bueller?

Bueller?

Well you know, ever since the whole... fatwas.... riots ....thought police... kind of thing.

...that didn't answer the question. You afraid, Hydesland?

I would be concerned if I was in the media, government, or schollar looking to get my work published. But i'm not scared of anything right now.

Well you know, ever since the whole... fatwas.... riots ....thought police... kind of thing.

...that didn't answer the question. You afraid, Hydesland?

Well you know, ever since the whole... fatwas.... riots ....thought police... kind of thing.

Amusing. I don't find anyone afraid to criticize Mulsim culture. You will find lots of people who aren't as willing to ignore context as you are, but that's a seperate issue.

It really doesn't matter, honestly. We don't call it an honor killing here when a father catches his daughter in bed with some boy and kills them both or when a man kills his wife so she doesn't leave him. We certainly would if it would grant some level of favor, but since it doesn't, they just call it murder. Somehow murder only matters if it's done for religion and by people with brown skin. The fact that murder is and always has been rampant among white people of all beliefs, and that religion has only ever been offered of as an excuse for violent people to get their violence accepted really doesn't have any bearing on whether or not Kimchi will be another thread in a moment crying about Muslims.

We hardly even call it murder. Try "family tragedy".

I would be concerned if I was in the media, government, or schollar looking to get my work published. But i'm not scared of anything right now.

So, you personally would, hypothetically, be so afraid of Muslims you wouldn't be able to "criticize" their "culture."

OK. So that's 1. Well, 1/2, since it's a hypothetical fear. I'm being generous.

Who else? Come on, you can't all be so afraid you can't even mention that you're afraid. ;)

You can't post that here on NS General - they'll call you a racist and a Muslim-basher.

In this thread, you've just demonstrated why you get that response so often. Learn from it. Please. This is getting silly.

So, you personally would, hypothetically, be so afraid of Muslims you wouldn't be able to "criticize" their "culture."


It's not that black and white, if I really was in a position of high influence, I wouldn't be so retarded to enrage certain militants and cause riots in the middle east. Even the most slightest analysis can bring on dire consequences, as long as you're wanting to publish your work and have gained a lot of influence.


Who else? Come on, you can't all be so afraid you can't even mention that you're afraid. ;)

What kind of question is that? Tell me, who is afraid of sharks? I want you to prove to me that people are afraid of sharks, I believe that if you name people that will offer empirical proof. If you can't you are lying.

Amusing. I don't find anyone afraid to criticize Mulsim culture. You will find lots of people who aren't as willing to ignore context as you are, but that's a seperate issue.
I live in the UK.

Trust me there's a sense of treating Muslims with kid gloves and there's definitely people afraid to criticise them, for either being called a racist or getting death threats off radicals in extreme cases.

We hardly even call it murder. Try "family tragedy".

Just like the wrestler that killed his wife and kid. They did a whole special on him. That is getting ridiculous.

I live in the UK.

Trust me there's a sense of treating Muslims with kid gloves and there's definitely people afraid to criticise them, for either being called a racist or getting death threats off radicals in extreme cases.


Yeah, why don't they get a sense of humour like the Irish....

So even hypothetically, you wouldn't be "afraid" you'd just be "not retarded?"

Yeah, but it is still through fear of the consequences.

It's not that black and white, if I really was in a position of high influence, I wouldn't be so retarded to enrage certain millitants and cause riots in the middle east. Even the most slightest analysis can bring on dier consequences, as long as your wanting to publish your work and have gained a lot of influence.

So even hypothetically, you wouldn't be "afraid" you'd just be "not retarded?"

If this is to prove the inherently evil nature of religious conservatism, I think the nail went in long ago.

QFT

All religious books are what people think about God, and for some reason our dumb asses try to build a system.

I think there is a God, I just hate organized religion.

Ah, so you can't find one... must be a Muslim thing, eh?

It is. Ever read the Koran?

Hydesland is proving my point about being so afraid of Muslims that we bend over backwards to protect whatever stupidity they engage in.

If you were in a high up position, would you risk your life or at least your job/credibility to criticize Islam?

It's not that black and white, if I really was in a position of high influence, I wouldn't be so retarded to enrage certain militants and cause riots in the middle east. Even the most slightest analysis can bring on dire consequences, as long as you're wanting to publish your work and have gained a lot of influence.

What kind of question is that? Tell me, who is afraid of sharks? I want you to prove to me that people are afraid of sharks, I believe that if you name people that will offer empirical proof? If you can't you are lying.

Hydesland is proving my point about being so afraid of Muslims that we bend over backwards to protect whatever stupidity they engage in.

Hydesland is proving my point about being so afraid of Muslims that we bend over backwards to protect whatever stupidity they engage in.

Your right to a degree. However we also do that with other nations and or peoples. Chinese come to mind right away. We look away at many things they do because of trade. We look the other way at things in Russia because of their military and political power. Do you not agree?

No, he really isn't proving your point. Neither are you, by the way.

I ask the same question to you as I did to RO. If you were in a high up position, would you risk your life or at least your job/credibility to criticize Islam?

*assuming you don't believe that the Quran is perfect*

Hydesland is proving my point about being so afraid of Muslims that we bend over backwards to protect whatever stupidity they engage in.

No, he really isn't proving your point. Neither are you, by the way.

If you were in a high up position, would you risk your life or at least your job/credibility to criticize Islam?

Unless your criticism is clearly of a bigoted nature, I don't see how it would risk your life or job/credibility, at least not in Western nations.

Sure, if you're like RO and you are constantly talking about TEB EBIL MUSLIMS, you won't be seen as very credible. If you try to claim that the actions of a few represent all of Islam, you won't be seen as credible.

Actually, he is. He's saying that politicians have to fear Muslim rioters.

Why? Because the threat of violence is credible. If you fail to appease Muslims, they riot, etc.

See?

Whens the last time there was a riot in Britain related to what a politician said specifically about muslims? Or America, for that matter.

Unless your criticism is clearly of a bigoted nature, I don't see how it would risk your life or job/credibility, at least not in Western nations.


Look up Salman Rushdie.

No, he really isn't proving your point. Neither are you, by the way.

Actually, he is. He's saying that politicians have to fear Muslim rioters.

Why? Because the threat of violence is credible. If you fail to appease Muslims, they riot, etc.

See?

Whens the last time there was a riot in Britain related to what a politician said specifically about muslims? Or America, for that matter.

There have been many riots over blasphemy in the UK.

Whens the last time there was a riot in Britain related to what a politician said specifically about muslims? Or America, for that matter.

You haven't been to Finsbury Park, have you?

Obviously not.

Actually, he is. He's saying that politicians have to fear Muslim rioters.

Why? Because the threat of violence is credible. If you fail to appease Muslims, they riot, etc.

See?

Politicians have to watch what they say to everyone in a democratic country. Cuz if you piss off voters they won't vote for you and get you the power that, as a politician, is all you live and care for.

And "criticizing" Muslim "culture" is not the same as "failing to appease" Muslims.

But, I understand you feel the need to equate Muslims with Terrorism because it gets you some kind of perverted attention you have a desperate need for. Don't let me rain on your parade by making the astute observation that you don't have a leg to stand on rationally.

Look up Salman Rushdie.

Doesn't seem to have affected his career or credibility adversely at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

He received death threats, and that is a problem. But, then again, people receive death threats for political views, for saving dogs that are dying on their owners' lawns, for running for president, for carrying out medical research, for working at a women's clinic, etc., etc.... Death threats are hardly limited to saying something that some Muslims don't like.

Doesn't seem to have affected his career or credibility adversely at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie

He received death threats, and that is a problem. But, then again, people receive death threats for political views, for saving dogs that are dying on their owners' lawns, for running for president, for carrying out medical research, for working at a women's clinic, etc., etc.... Death threats are hardly limited to saying something that some Muslims don't like.

He had to stay underground for 10 years. It was much more serious then death threats, the Hezbollah were trying to assisinate him and the supreme leader of Iran issued a fatwa on him! And this was only for a very minor criticism on inconsistencies in the Quran. See what I mean?

those that are done by Christians aren't necessarily honor killings. The term is used for the Muslims because it would be considered very shameful to be in love with an infidel. That is not the teaching of any Christian sect I know of, so the killing most likely wasn't done in honor of their family, but in hatred of the person and/or their belief.

There have been many riots over blasphemy in the UK.

Ok.

Give me an example.


You haven't been to Finsbury Park, have you?.

I lack your travel miles, as I'm only a sad little man.

Finsbury park is a riot? Finsbury park riots due to what politicians statement on muslims.

Politicians have to watch what they say to everyone in a democratic country. Cuz if you piss off voters they won't vote for you and get you the power that, as a politician, is all you live and care for.

And "criticizing" Muslim "culture" is not the same as "failing to appease" Muslims.

But, I understand you feel the need to equate Muslims with Terrorism because it gets you some kind of perverted attention you have a desperate need for. Don't let me rain on your parade by making the astute observation that you don't have a leg to stand on rationally.

You obviously have never seen the people at Finsbury Park, when they're really angry.

You obviously have never seen the people at Finsbury Park, when they're really angry.

Why, I do believe that's a strawman that, yet again, doesn't actually address anything I said.

Either you're just incredibly shitty at debate (and on drugs, if I'm any judge), or you're a troll. Take your pick. Of course, it's possible to be both. But I don't think "neither" is an option anymore.

As (troll whine lie troll whine lie, touch of distortion for the laugh) Muslims...

O shut up. Buy a goldfish and bore it with your shite. Get a bicycle repair kit and repair your g/f.

As for equating Muslims with Terrorism...

http://www.tkb.org/IncidentClassModule.jsp?startDate=09%2F11%2F2001&endDate=07%2F30%2F2007&domInt=0&suiInt=0&filter=0&detail=0&info=&info1=&imageField.x=72&imageField.y=15&imageField=filter+results&pagemode=class

Click on the Nationalism entry to see the names of groups involved in that
Click on the Religious entry to see the names of groups involved in that

That's the vast majority of terrorist acts between Sept 11, 2001 and today.

Wow - looks like they're nearly all Muslims....

Go ahead - attack the link - say it's not real, the data is fake, the source is biased, it has nothing to do with Muslims...

I ask the same question to you as I did to RO. If you were in a high up position, would you risk your life or at least your job/credibility to criticize Islam?

*assuming you don't believe that the Quran is perfect*

I don't agree that I'd be risking my life or my job or credibility. I wouldn't criticize the way you criticize because they tend to fire racists, but I would certainly be willing to rationally call out Muslim individuals for the stuff they do or support, provided I would equally call out any people for similar actions.

Where you get into trouble is when you ignore all evidence just go on anti-Islamic rants. And you're right, people tend to notice you're a bigot when everything you say is bigotted. People are funny that way.

Ok.

Give me an example.


Well for one example, I'm sure you are aware of the riots in the UK over the picture of Muhammad as a terrorist right?

As for equating Muslims with Terrorism...

http://www.tkb.org/IncidentClassModule.jsp?startDate=09%2F11%2F2001&endDate=07%2F30%2F2007&domInt=0&suiInt=0&filter=0&detail=0&info=&info1=&imageField.x=72&imageField.y=15&imageField=filter+results&pagemode=class

Click on the Nationalism entry to see the names of groups involved in that
Click on the Religious entry to see the names of groups involved in that

That's the vast majority of terrorist acts between Sept 11, 2001 and today.

Wow - looks like they're nearly all Muslims....

Yes, there are Muslim terrorists.

That doesn't mean you can use "Muslim" and terrorist interchangeably (as you've done) nor does it suggest that even a significant minority of Muslims are terrorists.

It's the same thing as pointing out how many crimes are committed by black people, as some sort of justification for racism against black people. Disingenuous, and frankly, stupid.

Try again.

Go ahead - attack the link - say it's not real, the data is fake, the source is biased, it has nothing to do with Muslims...

Oooh, ANOTHER strawman! You're so generous today! I'm so ashamed, I have nothing to give you in return!

Except... perhaps... maybe you'd like some more ass-raping of your "arguments?"

I don't agree that I'd be risking my life or my job or credibility. I wouldn't criticize the way you criticize because they tend to fire racists, but I would certainly be willing to rationally call out Muslim individuals for the stuff they do or support, provided I would equally call out any people for similar actions.

Where you get into trouble is when you ignore all evidence just go on anti-Islamic rants. And you're right, people tend to notice you're a bigot when everything you say is bigotted. People are funny that way.

Let's look at evidence, shall we?

http://www.tkb.org/IncidentClassModule.jsp?startDate=09%2F11%2F2001&endDate=07%2F30%2F2007&domInt=0&suiInt=0&filter=0&detail=0&info=&info1=&imageField.x=72&imageField.y=15&imageField=filter+results&pagemode=class

Click on Nationalism and on Religious.

See the names of the groups?

Nearly all are Islamic groups.

Change the filter to Suicide attack, and refilter.

You'll get a handful of leftists, and the rest will be Islamic.

I don't agree that I'd be risking my life or my job or credibility.

I'll link to one of my posts to show you how there is a risk:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12921778&postcount=100


I wouldn't criticize the way you criticize because they tend to fire racists

How can criticizing Islam have any possible connection to racism at all?

As for equating Muslims with Terrorism...

http://www.tkb.org/IncidentClassModule.jsp?startDate=09%2F11%2F2001&endDate=07%2F30%2F2007&domInt=0&suiInt=0&filter=0&detail=0&info=&info1=&imageField.x=72&imageField.y=15&imageField=filter+results&pagemode=class

Click on the Nationalism entry to see the names of groups involved in that
Click on the Religious entry to see the names of groups involved in that

That's the vast majority of terrorist acts between Sept 11, 2001 and today.

Wow - looks like they're nearly all Muslims....

Go ahead - attack the link - say it's not real, the data is fake, the source is biased, it has nothing to do with Muslims...

Yes, I know how you hate it when people rationally look at data.

How many of those attacks are acts of war? I wonder if we equally call it terrorism every time the US military has civilian causalities.

Quick question, RO, was the firebombing of Tokyo terrorism?

In 2003, the Coalition of the Willing is ultimately responsible for around 70,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. If it was any other group that had attacked that nation in the way we did for the reasons we did, we would consider it terrorism. Should US and Terrorism be interchangeable?

Yes, I know how you hate it when people rationally look at data.

How many of those attacks are acts of war? I wonder if we equally call it terrorism every time the US military has civilian causalities.

Quick question, RO, was the firebombing of Tokyo terrorism?

Act of war - remember the declaration of war?

And consider the time period. Can't judge that by today's standards.

Those were listed as acts of terrorism in the database. Click on the methodology to see if there's an answer to your question.

But it already backs up what I already know, and have already been saying.

Muslims are responsible for the majority of terrorist acts on the planet today.

And you can't deny the data.

Here you go:

Terrorism: For the purposes of this database, terrorism is defined by the nature of the act, not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of the cause. Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

And of course, to commit terrorism, you have to be in a terrorist group:

Terrorist Group: A terrorist group is defined as a collection of individuals belonging to an autonomous non-state or subnational revolutionary or anti-governmental movement who are dedicated to the use of violence to achieve their objectives. Such an entity is seen as having at least some structural and command and control apparatus that, no matter how loose or flexible, nonetheless provides an overall organizational framework and general strategic direction. This definition is meant to include contemporary religion-motivated and apocalyptic groups and other movements that seek theological justification or divine sanction for their acts of violence.

Glen Beck, is that you?

No. Glenn has more sense. :eek:

Act of war - remember the declaration of war?

And consider the time period. Can't judge that by today's standards.

Those were listed as acts of terrorism in the database. Click on the methodology to see if there's an answer to your question.

But it already backs up what I already know, and have already been saying.

Muslims are responsible for the majority of terrorist acts on the planet today.

And you can't deny the data.

I clicked on the methodology. Terrorism has always been rather spuriously defined. Those groups have absolutely declared war. That we put up a piece of paper before we kicked of a conflict that caused 70,000 deaths hardly changes that we did it and that they other side(s) don't like it.

What that site backs up is that a group, the current US government, defines terrorism in such a way that the majority of culprits are Muslim. It proves NOTHING else.

And of course RO claims that the "data" proves him right.

Let's look at this proof then. See if it stands the test of my blinding reason.

1. Majority of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims.
2. Therefore, majority of Muslims are terrorists.
3. Thus, killing Muslims is better than sex. And if you disagree you're just bending over for the infidels because you're afraid.

Hmm... seems like fail to me. But hey RO maybe you could paste that link a THIRD time. When in doubt, spam!

Here you go:

Terrorism: For the purposes of this database, terrorism is defined by the nature of the act, not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of the cause. Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

And of course, to commit terrorism, you have to be in a terrorist group:

Terrorist Group: A terrorist group is defined as a collection of individuals belonging to an autonomous non-state or subnational revolutionary or anti-governmental movement who are dedicated to the use of violence to achieve their objectives. Such an entity is seen as having at least some structural and command and control apparatus that, no matter how loose or flexible, nonetheless provides an overall organizational framework and general strategic direction. This definition is meant to include contemporary religion-motivated and apocalyptic groups and other movements that seek theological justification or divine sanction for their acts of violence.

So the only thing that absolves the US from being included as a terrorist organization is that it is a nationstate. Hmmm... not something I'd be particularly proud.

"We're not terrorists. We're a country, so we can't be. Nyah!"

Sorry, I meant to say bigotry. RO is the racist. You may also be racist, but I've only seen bigotry.

What did I say that was bigoted?

I'll link to one of my posts to show you how there is a risk:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12921778&postcount=100



How can criticizing Islam have any possible connection to racism at all?

Sorry, I meant to say bigotry. RO is the racist. You may also be racist, but I've only seen bigotry.

And your link proves nothing. Rushdie is in no danger in the US. Unless you're suggesting that I couldn't criticize Muslims in Pakistan, you really not addressing the point.

I clicked on the methodology. Terrorism has always been rather spuriously defined. Those groups have absolutely declared war. That we put up a piece of paper before we kicked of a conflict that caused 70,000 deaths hardly changes that we did it and that they other side(s) don't like it.

What that site backs up is that a group, the current US government, defines terrorism in such a way that the majority of culprits are Muslim. It proves NOTHING else.

Doesn't look spurious to me.

You would have to prove to me that the numbers you have )probably the Lancet's bullshit numbers) are real, and that they are all innocent civilians, and that none of them are insurgents, terrorists, or recently jobless Iraqi soldiers.

So the only thing that absolves the US from being included as a terrorist organization is that it is a nationstate. Hmmm... not something I'd be particularly proud.

"We're not terrorists. We're a country, so we can't be. Nyah!"

We're also not specifically targeting the civilian populace.

And your link proves nothing. Rushdie is in no danger in the US. Unless you're suggesting that I couldn't criticize Muslims in Pakistan, you really not addressing the point.

Al Qaida are still after him.

Doesn't look spurious to me.

You would have to prove to me that the numbers you have )probably the Lancet's bullshit numbers) are real, and that they are all innocent civilians, and that none of them are insurgents, terrorists, or recently jobless Iraqi soldiers.

As soon as you prove to me at that all the targets of those terrorist acts you're citing are none of those things. I'll wait.

And? How does this prove anything about the US. You were suggesting that one should be afraid to criticize in the US.

Here, I'll go first. Terrorists, if you see this, I think you're all a bunch of cowards and I put Al Queda at the top of the list.

Hmmm... yeah, I'm sure scared to criticize. Golly, I sure hope I survive.

I didn't say anyone. I said anyone that was in a position of influence, power etc... not just any Joe Schmo.

We're also not specifically targeting the civilian populace.

We're not? Attacking a soveriegn country in a way that throws it into chaos and creates a situation where as many people have died as have is our responsibility. We threw that country into chaos through negligence or outright intent. But it's not the only one.

What about our attacks on civilian cocaine fields or various other attacks by us during the drug "war". The US according to the definition giving for terrorism is the biggest terrorist group in the world and responsible for the most deaths unless we disqualify them because we happen to be a nationstate.

That's why the definition is spurious. Your entire bs rant is spurious because it requires to ignore the context of the war with Muslims. Do I love the US? Yep. And unlike you, my service to this country is quite credible. And do I recognize that that this country's definition of terrorism just happens to be conveniently defined so we can ignore the embarrassing behaviors that our government engages in? Yep. Of course it is.

You like to ignore the data you don't like, but the fact is that the US willing kills people for political ends. The entire war on drugs proves this. And the war on terrorism is continuing to prove it. If we were actually engaged in making the world safer we'd have concentrated on Afghanistan. Instead we selected the first remotely credible excuse for revenge.

Al Qaida are still after him.

And? How does this prove anything about the US. You were suggesting that one should be afraid to criticize in the US.

Here, I'll go first. Terrorists, if you see this, I think you're all a bunch of cowards and I put Al Queda at the top of the list.

Hmmm... yeah, I'm sure scared to criticize. Golly, I sure hope I survive.

Sad but true.


People are afraid to criticize Muslim culture because some idiot will call them a racist. Islam is apparently a race now, not a set of beliefs and practises.

Well you know, ever since the whole... fatwas.... riots ....thought police... kind of thing.

I didn't say anyone. I said anyone that was in a position of influence, power etc... not just any Joe Schmo.

Ah, I see, so you were shifting the goalposts and now you're upset that we've shown that you're full of crap. Good to know.

Tigrisar said people in response to DK's claim that people are erroneously calling his rants racist and bigotted. Your response was to support Tigrisar's suggestion.

So now that we admit that you're not able to support what Tigrisar said and you tried to support. Let's move on to your other claim.

Are there major media personalities criticizing Muslims? Yup. Have certain politicians? Yep. Have they done it in a way that indicts Islam as a whole? On occasion. And when they do, people call them out for the bigotry. It's not fear that drives it. It's rational thought. You can try all you like to get around that, but your bigotry is called bigotry because the broad brush you want to paint people with, but only certain types of people, is irrational. It has naught to do with fear.

People in positions of influence never say "******" or "cracker" either. Perhaps they're afraid of fatwahs.

Ah, I see, so you were shifting the goalposts and now you're upset that we've shown that you're full of crap. Good to know.


Dear God that reaches a new level of failure. Firstly I already mentioned about it not being every Joe Schmo in my second post, which was ages ago and so annoying that you have to bring it back again when I've already gone over this. Secondly, saying "people" does not nesicerally mean "everyone". Also, I was responding to GT post not Tigrisar.


So now that we admit that you're not able to support what Tigrisar said and you tried to support. Let's move on to your other claim.


I never tried to support whether RO's rants are biggoted or not, the convo has nothing to do with that.


Are there major media personalities criticizing Muslims? Yup. Have certain politicians? Yep. Have they done it in a way that indicts Islam as a whole? On occasion. And when they do, people call them out for the bigotry.

Why is it Bigoted? When scholars give even the most basic analysis of Islamic texts that suggest any sort of inconsistency in the Quran, all hell breaks loose. And this is nothing compared to the day to day (and quite rightly so) scrutinisation the Bible and Christianity gets. Are you calling those people bigoted also? If so then thanks, I will proudly be called a bigot if your definition is someone who doesn't think all religions are perfect.

I don't think there's a single religion on the planet that regards women as full human beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

Which is likely one of the reasons why there were witch hunts. Not WICCA per se as it didn't exist as such back then, but the old religions were inconvenient in that they granted some ideological benefits to women.

People in positions of influence never say "******" or "cracker" either. Perhaps they're afraid of fatwahs.

Fatwahs? No, no. They're afraid of getting assaulted by the black man!

Why, look at this statistic:

First, click on the link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Then, scroll down to the second chart. You'll see that blacks are 7 times more murderous! Clearly, the data doesn't lie, and this is vindication for any comments I might make suggesting all blacks are murderers.

And if you disagree, you are simply bending over for black men because you're afraid to criticize their culture!

Dear God that reaches a new level of failure. Firstly I already mentioned about it not being every Joe Schmo in my second post, which was ages ago and so annoying that you have to bring it back again when I've already gone over this. Secondly, saying "people" does not nesicerally mean "everyone". Also, I was responding to GT post not Tigrisar.

In context it was a reference to people here. Meanwhile, you didn't correct yourself, you qualified A statement. I took it to be a qualification of the statement you were making at the time. You later backpedaled, but come on, shouldn't we expect that by not?


I never tried to support whether RO's rants are biggoted or not, the convo has nothing to do with that.

Who is talking about RO? I was talking about Tigrisar whose argument you posted to support.


Why is it Bigoted? When scholars give even the most basic analysis of Islamic texts that suggest any sort of inconsistency in the Quran, all hell breaks loose.

No, it doesn't. No more so than when people analyze the Bible.

And this is nothing compared to the day to day (and quite rightly so) scrutinisation the Bible and Christianity gets. Are you calling those people bigoted also? If so then thanks, I will proudly be called a bigot if your definition is someone who doesn't think all religions are perfect.

Sometimes. I would say it's obviously bigotted to attack an entire religion as if it's one homogenous group. Not all Muslims believe in the infalibility of the Quran. Not all of them agree with certain interpretations. This is also true of Christians.

A bigot is someone who rather than rationally identifying the individual branches and beliefs of various members or subgroups of a religion, pretends like they are all the same. Something you do, and something that is always irrational and always flawed.

In context it was a reference to people here. Meanwhile, you didn't correct yourself, you qualified A statement. I took it to be a qualification of the statement you were making at the time. You later backpedaled, but come on, shouldn't we expect that by not?


Whatever, you knew very well that I wasn't talking about everyone as soon as you entered into the discussion.


Who is talking about RO? I was talking about Tigrisar whose argument you posted to support.


If I was supporting Tigrisar, I would then nescecerilly be supporting the idea that RO is not racist or biggoted (which I do not know).


No, it doesn't. No more so than when people analyze the Bible.


As I already said, Salman Rushdie is the perfect example of this. This was what made them so mad: "According to it, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses (sura) to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the Satanic verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel. The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities."


Sometimes. I would say it's obviously bigotted to attack an entire religion as if it's one homogenous group. Not all Muslims believe in the infalibility of the Quran. Not all of them agree with certain interpretations. This is also true of Christians.


I don't attack all Muslims as one homogenous group.


A bigot is someone who rather than rationally identifying the individual branches and beliefs of various members or subgroups of a religion, pretends like they are all the same.

In what way do I do this?

And if you disagree, you are simply bending over for black men because you're afraid to criticize their culture!

I don't see how this has anything to do with Islam. There is no such thing as black culture, unless you are referring to ghetto culture. Is it evil to attack ghetto culture?

And since we've gotten so far from the point, let us get back on topic.

Find me one recent news story about a Christian or Buddhist honor killing.

I'll wait... for about 200 years...

Ah, so you can't find one... must be a Muslim thing, eh?

Let's see, twice you ask for one.

One. Wow, that's a lot, eh?

Got any more? We get one almost every day from Muslims.

This one sounds like an Arab tradition... so even an Arab Christian could do honor killing.

Any examples of Western Europeans (especially atheists) doing this?

Okay, now one isn't enough. And now it has to Western Europeans (especially atheists). Man, it sure is easy to find atheist Christians.

Looks like Arabs to me.

Got any, say in the UK or even Europe, from people whose families have lived as Christian in the UK for the past 400 years?

Recent honor killings? I think not.

Now, they have to have lived as a Christian for 400 years. And be from the UK or "even Europe". I'm not even sure what the hell that means.

No US Christian Fundamentalist honor killings, I see.

Now it has to be in the US and I notice that Buddhist is off the table now.


Nah, they blow up abortion clinics instead :)
Exactly.

And when you get the Christian fundamentalist equivalent to honor killings, you say "exactly" like it supports your point.

This is just classic RO nonsense. One wonders what possible point you could have that is being helped by this ridiculous argument.

RO came into the thread with a general attack on Muslims suggesting it was about Muslims. Then it was about Arabs. And then the only acceptable counter example must be white. As always, the topic then has to change to *gasp* a general attack on Muslims, even though he suggests he's not attempting to single them out. Interesting how that all works, no?

Whatever, you knew very well that I wasn't talking about everyone as soon as you entered into the discussion.

I knew you changed your claim. I noticed that.



If I was supporting Tigrisar, I would then nescecerilly be supporting the idea that RO is not racist or biggoted (which I do not know).

Tigrisar didn't say that either. Tigrisar said the reason they call it racist or bigotted is fear. You supported that claim.



As I already said, Salman Rushdie is the perfect example of this. This was what made them so mad: "According to it, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses (sura) to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the Satanic verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel. The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities."

And? It's not a perfect example of anything. How Muslim countries react to Salman Rushdie has shite to do with what goes on here. And I've not read the book so I can't say whether accusations I've read about it being a sweeping and generalistic attack on Muslims and their faith is accurate or absurd. However, the condemnations I've seen of the book have had NOTHING to do with fear.



I don't attack all Muslims as one homogenous group.

Every time you suggest that we should be afraid of criticizing "muslims" like any criticism is a reference to a general criticism and to a general group. Are you claiming you really meant that we should be afraid to criticize Al Queda?


In what way do I do this?

Already answered this. When you talk about criticisms of "Muslims" being general and reactions being general and basically make unqualified statements, it's broad brush work. It's no different than if I said Blacks are lazy.

Tigrisar didn't say that either. Tigrisar said the reason they call it racist or bigotted is fear. You supported that claim.


I may have accidentally quoted the wrong post but I don't ever remember holding that position. I support the view that many people are scared to criticize Islamic culture (and I don't blame them).


And? It's not a perfect example of anything. How Muslim countries react to Salman Rushdie has shite to do with what goes on here. And I've not read the book so I can't say whether accusations I've read about it being a sweeping and generalistic attack on Muslims and their faith is accurate or absurd. However, the condemnations I've seen of the book have had NOTHING to do with fear.

Again I don't know where you are getting this idea that people who attack Rushdie's book do it through fear. And Rushdie is a world renowned scholar (he even got Knighted), it certainly wasn't sweeping generalisations.


Every time you suggest that we should be afraid of criticizing "muslims"

Actually I suggest we shouldn't be, but sadly for important people that's the way it is. Hopefully the same thing that happened in Europe may happen in the middle east, where the Vatican was questioned and eventually (though it took a while) secularism was created (the best thing to ever happen to Europe since before the dark ages).


like any criticism is a reference to a general criticism and to a general group. Are you claiming you really meant that we should be afraid to criticize Al Queda?


I'm saying that we shouldn't be afraid to criticize the Quran and major Islamic cultures. So that's practically Islam in general (yes there are some peaceful progressive cultures, but they are sadly in the minority in a world wide scale).

Well for one example, I'm sure you are aware of the riots in the UK over the picture of Muhammad as a terrorist right?

Nope. I remember 40 people ranted alot and a good few were charged after. No arrests were made at the time though, because all they were doing was shouting crap. What did I miss?

I may have accidentally quoted the wrong post but I don't ever remember holding that position. I support the view that many people are scared to criticize Islamic culture (and I don't blame them).

I have little respect for irrational fears. They are in much more danger flying and that fear is irrational as well.


Again I don't know where you are getting this idea that people who attack Rushdie's book do it through fear. And Rushdie is a world renowned scholar (he even got Knighted), it certainly wasn't sweeping generalisations.

We are talking about fear causing people to try to prevent criticisms of Islam. Pay attention. I'm sorry if you've not taken the time to pay attention to the conversation you jumped into, but how is that my problem?



Actually I suggest we shouldn't be, but sadly for important people that's the way it is. Hopefully the same thing that happened in Europe may happen in the middle east, where the Vatican was questioned and eventually (though it took a while) secularism was created (the best thing to ever happen to Europe since before the dark ages).

You suggest we are afraid. Which is utter crap. We're not afraid. We simply qualify our statements because doing otherwise is irrational. Seriously, are you trying to avoiding putting my statements into the context of the discussion or are you really just this bad at making an argument that addresses the topic?



I'm saying that we shouldn't be afraid to criticize the Quran and major Islamic cultures. So that's practically Islam in general (yes there are some peaceful progressive cultures, but they are sadly in the minority in a world wide scale).

You're suggesting we are afraid and that broad criticisms are rational. They aren't. They never will be. They require us to fail to recognize differences in religious beliefs among individuals and among groups. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse of if you're doing this by accident, but it's harming your arguments.

I have little respect for irrational fears. They are in much more danger flying and that fear is irrational as well.


So I guess you think the press should post those pictures of Muhammad?


We are talking about fear causing people to try to prevent criticisms of Islam. Pay attention. I'm sorry if you've not taken the time to pay attention to the conversation you jumped into, but how is that my problem?


Look at the post I replied to, it was from Greater T, he said:
"Let's see a show of hands. Of people who are afraid to "criticize" "Muslim" "culture.", he didn't ask specifically for people only through fear of being called a bigot. Although you just admitted that anyone who does criticize it should be called a bigot.


You suggest we are afraid. Which is utter crap. We're not afraid. We simply qualify our statements because doing otherwise is irrational. Seriously, are you trying to avoiding putting my statements into the context of the discussion or are you really just this bad at making an argument that addresses the topic?


Why is there a huge lack of published scrutinisation on the Quran when compared to other major religions?


You're suggesting we are afraid and that broad criticisms are rational. They aren't. They never will be.

Show me where I used the term broad criticisms? Is criticising the Quran a broad criticism? If so prove it is a broad criticism, don't just (as usual) assert that it is without qualification. I didn't broadly attack all Muslim cultures, I simply said that peaceful progressive ones are in the minority.


I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse of if you're doing this by accident, but it's harming your arguments.

Please stop posting shit like this.

i keep misreading the title of this thread as being "dinosaur killing and raping in london"

i keep misreading the title of this thread as being "dinosaur killing and raping in london"

I for one am fed up with these frequent dinosaur attacks. I demand a dinosaur patrol!

So I guess you think the press should post those pictures of Muhammad?

I think posting pictures designed to denigrate a group is insensitive and wrong. I think this is true if it were Jesus being displayed killing a kitten or Muhammed with a bomb. You don't really have a sense of spectrum do you? There is a long range between afraid to do it and thinking it's right. My issue with it is not fear. But hey, good thing you're not suggesting fear is the reason for people objecting... oh, wait.

You have any more of your own argument you want to prove are dishonest?


Look at the post I replied to, it was from Greater T, he said:
"Let's see a show of hands. Of people who are afraid to "criticize" "Muslim" "culture.", he didn't ask specifically for people only through fear of being called a bigot. Although you just admitted that anyone who does criticize it should be called a bigot.

No, I didn't. What I said is that people who don't recognize that there is no homogenous Muslim culture ARE bigots. There are all types of Muslims and unless you qualify comments about them to the people they are accurate for, you aren't in fact being bigotted. Just like when I said Blacks are lazy. Unless I say, that black kid over there is lazy, or the kids that did this were lazy, then I'm being bigotted.



Why is there a huge lack of published scrutinisation on the Quran when compared to other major religions?

Amusing. Again, you seem to fail miserably at recognizing there are more reasons than fear for such things. For example, does it occur to you that the greatest power until recently has been in the hands of Christians. It's still generally true, but Christians get the most criticism in the Western world, because they have the greatest influence on it.

But, hey, let's go back to fear being the only reason you recognize because that's the only way your argument makes any sense.



Show me where I used the term broad criticisms? Is criticising the Quran a broad criticism? If so prove it is a broad criticism, don't just (as usual) assert that it is without qualification. I didn't broadly attack all Muslim cultures, I simply said that peaceful progressive ones are in the minority.


It is if you pretend there is only one interpretation or one understanding. It is if you think that one particular criticism someone indicts all Muslims as you originally claimed by saying that it can be shown that it's violent.

And, bullshit. Are we to pretend you just showed up? Your arguments don't exist in vacuum. Your argument are NEVER qualified. You've been broadly attacking Muslims for your entire time on NSG. Don't piss on me and tell me it's rain. I can smell the difference. Incidentally, lay of the asparagus, or stop making ridiculous arguments.

Please stop posting shit like this.

Nah. If you ignore the context of the argument, I'm going to comment on it. I admit I can't tell if it's intentional, but it very much affects the quality of your argument.

I think posting pictures designed to denigrate a group is insensitive and wrong. I think this is true if it were Jesus being displayed killing a kitten or Muhammed with a bomb. You don't really have a sense of spectrum do you? There is a long range between afraid to do it and thinking it's right. My issue with it is not fear. But hey, good thing you're not suggesting fear is the reason for people objecting... oh, wait.

You have any more of your own argument you want to prove are dishonest?


Why did the press not post the pictures that caused the riots in the middle east intended to inform the readers what the fuss was all about, but did post pictures of offensive Christian material? Because it didn't want to cause any more riots. Keep sticking your head in the ground.


No, I didn't. What I said is that people who don't recognize that there is no homogenous Muslim culture ARE bigots.

And you admitted to the hugely irrational belief that criticism of the Quran equates to this.


Amusing. Again, you seem to fail miserably at recognizing there are more reasons than fear for such things. For example, does it occur to you that the greatest power until recently has been in the hands of Christians. It's still generally true, but Christians get the most criticism in the Western world, because they have the greatest influence on it.


Christianity is becoming less and less important, no foreign policy today is based on Christianity. Yes the same is not true for Islam in the middle east. The same thing that happened in Europe in the middle ages is happening today in the middle east, Islamic powers will not tolerate criticisms of their religion as if this were to happen they would loose their power.


It is if you pretend there is only one interpretation or one understanding. It is if you think that one particular criticism someone indicts all Muslims as you originally claimed by saying that it can be shown that it's violent.


I didn't really understand this post, but no interpretation of Islam denies that Muhammad really was telling the truth, and that he really was genuine. There is lots of evidence to the contrary, publishing this would be criticising all interpretations. Just like questioning the truth of Jesus being authentic is criticising all interpretations of the Bible, should we call people who do this bigoted too?


And, bullshit. Are we to pretend you just showed up? Your arguments don't exist in vacuum. Your argument are NEVER qualified. You've been broadly attacking Muslims for your entire time on NSG. Don't piss on me and tell me it's rain. I can smell the difference. Incidentally, lay of the asparagus, or stop making ridiculous arguments.

Nah. If you ignore the context of the argument, I'm going to comment on it. I admit I can't tell if it's intentional, but it very much affects the quality of your argument.

What did I just say about posting pointless shit?

Why did the press not post the pictures that caused the riots in the middle east intended to inform the readers what the fuss was all about, but did post pictures of offensive Christian material? Because it didn't want to cause any more riots. Keep sticking your head in the ground.

Amusing. Do you always argue strawmen? We're talking about what I would do and I wouldn't. I think it's wrong. You've still not shown this is due to fear. Perhaps they simply didn't want to be associated to the bigotry that inspired the original pictures.



And you admitted to the hugely irrational belief that criticism of the Quran equates to this.

Amusing. No, I didn't. Do you think lying about what I said is going to hellp your argument? Can't defeat the arguments I've made so you have just make them up now? That really isn't going to do anything for you.




Christianity is becoming less and less important, no foreign policy today is based on Christianity. Yes the same is not true for Islam in the middle east. The same thing that happened in Europe in the middle ages is happening today in the middle east, Islamic powers will not tolerate criticisms of their religion as if this were to happen they would loose their power.

Christianity is still the most influential religion in the world in terms of the power of its adherents and the amount they are able to affect powerful governments.

Yes, it's changing but it obviously explains why it's held the focus of the press for so long. You'll notice that as other religions and ideologies get to similar levels of power, the amount of criticism and analysis drastically increases.


I didn't really understand this post, but no interpretation of Islam denies that Muhammad really was telling the truth, and that he really was genuine. There is lots of evidence to the contrary, publishing this would be criticising all interpretations. Just like questioning the truth of Jesus being authentic is criticising all interpretations of the Bible, should we call people who do this bigoted too?

I'm sorry you don't understand. Muslims come in many shades and stripes. Many don't believe that everything he wrote is unreproachable as evidence by the quote you presented. Go back and look at it again and you'll have the context necessary to give a real response.

I didn't say that questioning the validity of the teachings of Muhammed was bigotted. I've continually qualified my statements. If you're going to ignore what I say, what's the point. I'm referring to sweeping conclusions like the one you made above about how "no interpretation of Islam denise that Muhammed really was telling the truth". That's patently false.



What did I just say about posting pointless shit?

I realize you're missing the point, but you ignoring context in an argument is not pointless. It's relevant to the argument. Absent the context of statements, much of your replies don't make sense. Much of what you're posting is ignoring the relevance of what has already been said. That's very important to the flow of the debate. That you don't accept the importance of this is not reason for me to deny it or for me to stop pointing out that you're analysis is flawed for that very reason.

Amusing. Do you always argue strawmen? We're talking about what I would do and I wouldn't. I think it's wrong. You've still not shown this is due to fear. Perhaps they simply didn't want to be associated to the bigotry that inspired the original pictures.


You think it is wrong, but the press do it because they don't want riots to happen.


Amusing. No, I didn't. Do you think lying about what I said is going to hellp your argument? Can't defeat the arguments I've made so you have just make them up now? That really isn't going to do anything for you.


What the fuck? You have just spent the last 2 pages calling me a bigot for suggesting that we should criticise the Quran.


Christianity is still the most influential religion in the world in terms of the power of its adherents and the amount they are able to affect powerful governments.

Yes, it's changing but it obviously explains why it's held the focus of the press for so long. You'll notice that as other religions and ideologies get to similar levels of power, the amount of criticism and analysis drastically increases.


Islam is as powerful, if not more powerful then Christianity was during the middle ages, yet it is not subjected to anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny as Christianity during the enlightenment. It needs to be.


I'm sorry you don't understand. Muslims come in many shades and stripes. Many don't believe that everything he wrote is unreproachable as evidence by the quote you presented. Go back and look at it again and you'll have the context necessary to give a real response.


I didn't say infallible I said authentic, as in he didn't even believe what he said or he was in insane. If there are some muslims that do believe this, then they are in such a small minority as to render them totally irellavent.


I didn't say that questioning the validity of the teachings of Muhammed was bigotted. I've continually qualified my statements. If you're going to ignore what I say, what's the point. I'm referring to sweeping conclusions like the one you made above about how "no interpretation of Islam denise that Muhammed really was telling the truth". That's patently false.


Again, if there is a group of muslims that believe that Muhammad was lying then they are in an extremely small minority.


I realize you're missing the point, but you ignoring context in an argument is not pointless. It's relevant to the argument. Absent the context of statements, much of your replies don't make sense. Much of what you're posting is ignoring the relevance of what has already been said. That's very important to the flow of the debate. That you don't accept the importance of this is not reason for me to deny it or for me to stop pointing out that you're analysis is flawed for that very reason.

It is completely pointles, unless you point out where I have apparently "ignored context" which isn't already mentioned somewhere else in your post, that part of the post is toally irellavent.

You think it is wrong, but the press do it because they don't want riots to happen.

Nonsense. The press already did it. Those pictures were all over. And they were ridiculous and offensive. I wouldn't have published them and it would have nothing to do with fear.



What the fuck? You have just spent the last 2 pages calling me a bigot for suggesting that we should criticise the Quran.

Again, it would really help a lot of if you actually pay attention. I said if your criticism was a sweeping attack on the entire religion. You're extending the criticism of the Quran to mean more than that. That's why you are defending by suggesting it must be any criticism of the Quran must be a slight against the entire religion. Seriously, I really don't have the patience for goldfishing. If you don't really care to remember what we're discussing then why are you even talking? You can't possibly think you're going to convince anyone by simply forgetting aspects of the conversation conveniently?




Islam is as powerful, if not more powerful then Christianity was during the middle ages, yet it is not subjected to anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny as Christianity during the enlightenment. It needs to be.

Pardon? Seriously, just stop talking. This is just nonsense. Islamic countries and groups are criticized all the time for their actions and how they use their power. Seriously, look at the number of threads on here about it. Two countries are in the midst of full-scale war, one of them for simply having a lot of Muslims.


I didn't say infallible I said authentic, as in he didn't even believe what he said or he was in insane. If there are some muslims that do believe this, then they are in such a small minority as to render them totally irellavent.

What? Seriously, what the hell does authentic have to do with it? The fact is if it's fallible then criticizing some of what he said would not be of issue to a Muslim that doesn't believe in that statement. Muslims like most religions use relatively old texts with some differing opinions on interpretation and on how it applies to their lives. Pretending that a criticism of a particular statement of Muhammed is an indictment of all of Islam is precisely what is bigotted about your argument.

It's funny that in one part you're claiming I never required that a criticism of the Quran be sweeping and in another part of the same post you're trying to prove it is sweeping. If I never said it, why are you trying to prove it? Hmmmm... are you sure you don't want to just start over, because seriously, this isn't going well for your argument?


Again, if there is a group of muslims that believe that Muhammad was lying then they are in an extremely small minority.

The specific quote you gave talks about the widespread Muslim belief that Muhammed wrote lies because he was tricked by the devil. Not that he was lying, but that what he was telling was not the truth, they were lies. When you say what you're saying you're ignoring this obvious fact.



It is completely pointles, unless you point out where I have apparently "ignored context" which isn't already mentioned somewhere else in your post, that part of the post is toally irellavent.

I have. Repeatedly. You're doing it now. I've quoted you. I pointed out what I really said when you've made claims about what I've said. I've pointed out what a comment was replying to when you misinterpreted it. I've pointed out over and over exactly how your arguments just keep on misconstruing basically every point.

And you keep getting upset that I keep explaining why this ignorance of context is important, but because you keep doing it, it bears repeating. Your argument doesn't make any sense because it requires one to not take this argument as a whole and it requires us to ignore your own claims to what you believe and your own arguments from other threads. All of that context is significant.

I'm going to be explicit since you seem to be ignoring much of this.

Many Muslims don't believe every part of the Quran to be infallible.

As such, any criticism of particular aspects of the teachings is not an indictment of all Muslims.

Pretending it is, is irrational bigotry. Making other sweeping generalizations about Muslims is irrational bigotry.

There are a plethora of reasons for not criticizing Islams in bigotted ways (like putting a bomb on the head of their prophet) other than fear.

As such, the fact that Christianity is more criticized than Islam is not evidence of fear.

Now, there they all are. Reply to what I said a not what you can't remember. It will really help this argument be less silly and less damaging to your overall point.

I'm going to be explicit since you seem to be ignoring much of this.

Many Muslims don't believe every part of the Quran to be infallible.


I know.


As such, any criticism of particular aspects of the teachings is not an indictment of all Muslims.


I don't just believe in criticizing teachings, but also the general authenticity of Muhammad, and the state of his mental health etc...


Pretending it is, is irrational bigotry. Making other sweeping generalizations about Muslims is irrational bigotry.


I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. All I have said is that the Quran should be scrutinised. Like the Bible was in Europe. This means that the majority of Muslims that are left will hopefully be ones that don't believe in the infallibility of the Quran and believe in peace etc...


There are a plethora of reasons for not criticizing Islams in bigoted ways (like putting a bomb on the head of their prophet) other than fear.


But if you believe that it should be published in principle, you still won't publish it through fear and you know it. This was the point I was trying to get at.


As such, the fact that Christianity is more criticized than Islam is not evidence of fear.


You are simplifying it. It is not simply more criticized, but it has had the benefit of being subjected to years of scrutiny that has taken away huge credibility to the previous corrupt churches in Europe. Islam has not had this benefit, if people in the middle east do such a thing they are killed. If people not in the middle east do such a thing they have to go into hiding as has been shown.

I know.

You don't seem to know that I said that and nothing more. I'm glad that it's clear now.

I don't just believe in criticizing teachings, but also the general authenticity of Muhammad, and the state of his mental health etc...

Ah, how do you plan to speak educatedly on the state of Muhammed's health without spouting utter tripe?


I haven't made any sweeping generalisations. All I have said is that the Quran should be scrutinised. Like the Bible was in Europe. This means that the majority of Muslims that are left will hopefully be ones that don't believe in the infallibility of the Quran and believe in peace etc...

Amusing, but again provably false. You've made a ton of sweeping generalizations about how criticism of the Quran will effect Muslims and that no criticism is accepted about how Islam is different from Christianity is if they both homogenous. If you wish to qualify your statements appropriately, feel free. As yet, you've utterly failed to do so.



But if you believe that it should be published in principle, you still won't publish it through fear and you know it. This was the point I was trying to get at.

Pardon me? So your argument is that no matter what I say, you're right. Amusing, but stupid.


You are simplifying it. It is not simply more criticized, but it has had the benefit of being subjected to years of scrutiny that has taken away huge credibility to the previous corrupt churches in Europe. Islam has not had this benefit, if people in the middle east do such a thing they are killed. If people not in the middle east do such a thing they have to go into hiding as has been shown.

Bullshit. Rushdie was one person. Many people openly criticize the Quran, Muhammed and Islam all the time. You're premise requires to ignore all examples except one. The more accurate way to analyze this would be examine what made Rushdie different.

Of course, Anne Coulter must be in hiding, no? Cuz she's criticized the hell out of Islam.

And oversimplifying? You just pretended like we were talking about something else AGAIN. You said that the reason there is less criticism is fear. You used it as an argument. We weren't talking about the effect. We were talking about the reason for there being less. Come on, man. You can't just pretend we're talking about something else everytime your ass is in your hands.

Dear God you really haven't learned a thing Jocabia. I thought we were going to start again and leave all the irrelavence and confusion about what we had posted earlier behind. But I guess thats the only leg you have to stand on, you know being annoyingly pedantic rather then addressing the actual point of the post. I can't be bothered to continue this circular debate if you continue to reply with accusations of sweeping generalisation without any actual examples.

This is how the debate goes:

you: you are making a sweeping generalization

me: no i'm not and here is how..

*debating about whether or not this is true*

*later on*

me: so basically I think we should scrutinise blah blah blah

you: no you don't you just want make sweeping generalisations.


and this is where we get back to the beginning of the circle.

I for one am fed up with these frequent dinosaur attacks. I demand a dinosaur patrol!

i object to your automatically assuming that dinosaurs are responsible for these attacks. on what evidence, i ask? you are nothing more than a dino-bigot.

Dear God you really haven't learned a thing Jocabia. I thought we were going to start again and leave all the irrelavence and confusion about what we had posted earlier behind. But I guess thats the only leg you have to stand on, you know being annoyingly pedantic rather then addressing the actual point of the post. I can't be bothered to continue this circular debate if you continue to reply with accusations of sweeping generalisation without any actual examples.

This is how the debate goes:

you: you are making a sweeping generalization

me: no i'm not and here is how..

*debating about whether or not this is true*

*later on*

me: so basically I think we should scrutinise blah blah blah

you: no you don't you just want make sweeping generalisations.


and this is where we get back to the beginning of the circle.

This what I'm talking about. You openly admitted A) that no matter what I said I "really" would do something other. As quoted here -

Me: There are a plethora of reasons for not criticizing Islams in bigoted ways (like putting a bomb on the head of their prophet) other than fear.
You: You still won't publish it through fear and you know it.


You asked me a question and when I answered it you simply claimed I would do the opposite. But hey, let's pretend it's me who refuses to listen.

B) You can pretend that your criticism of Islam is limited to particular issues, but your actions say otherwise. You've repeatedly in your history on NSG cried about the evil Muslims. You may want to pretend for the moment that's not happened, but you don't post in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, what you're saying now doesn't even remotely resemble what you started on about in the thread. That's why your post is an actual reply. Because you can't actually make a defense. You just have to bitch about nonsense complaining that I don't get it. Amusingly, this is the same thing when you nailed to the wall a minute ago. You "deleted due to sheer pointlessness". What is pointless is pretending like context doesn't exist. What's pointless is pretending like on a written forum you can just lie about what you think or lie about what you've argued. What is pointless is pretending I've said something different than I've said on a written forum.

Because as I've done, I'll challeng you on those lies. And I plan to continue.

By all means continue, but don't expect to lie about what I've said or what you've said an get away with it on a written forum. Don't expect to get away with pretending like the information isn't there. It's not going to work. It's just going to make all the people who are watching our discussion shake their head as you've come to expect.

Soon, they will have no competition left. :p

*shakes bag of walnuts*

Dear God (.....)circle.


Riots? Britain? Cartoons/political statement?

i keep misreading the title of this thread as being "dinosaur killing and raping in london"


It's not Birmingham, you know.

i object to your automatically assuming that dinosaurs are responsible for these attacks. on what evidence, i ask? you are nothing more than a dino-bigot.

Those dinosaurs aren't like us. They don't respect our way of life and steal our rodent folk.

I have no objection to the dinosaurs living their way of life, but they should do it somewhere else. We're too tolerant of diversity in this country to tolerate them.

Bullshit. Rushdie was one person. Many people openly criticize the Quran, Muhammed and Islam all the time.

Like who?

Like who?

Glenn Beck

I'd just like to jump in here and say that I feel honoured to have created the first post leading to Jocabia's comprehensive pwnage.

Glenn Beck

Lol, good example.

Like who?

Anne Coultor and any number of right-wing idealogues call for the annihilation of Islam with relative frequency and certainly criticize. If you think no one is openly criticizing Islam, you're quite simply not paying attention. You think you guys invented it?

I'd just like to jump in here and say that I feel honoured to have created the first post leading to Jocabia's comprehensive pwnage.


Before you go getting all l33t....I asked for examples of riots in Britain due to criticism of Islam.......

Like who?

You really have to ask?

Ayaan Hirshi Ali, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Pat Robertson, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Irshad Manji, Fareed Zakaria...

There's quite a lot of them out there.

Pat Robertson,
And the your possibly legitimate post fails.

And the your possibly legitimate post fails.

You're saying he doesn't openly criticize the Quran, Muhammed and Islam?

Quick wiki search

Pat Robertson:
Remarks against Islam and Muslims

Robertson has frequently denounced the religion of Islam and Muslim people. During a 1995 taping of The 700 Club, he called the religion a "Christian heresy". During a September 19, 2002 episode of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Robertson claimed that the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, was "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic … a robber and a brigand."
On the July 14, 2005 broadcast of the The 700 Club, he claimed that "Islam, at its core, teaches violence."
On the September 25, 2006 broadcast of The 700 Club Robertson stated "It's amazing how the Muslims deal with history and the truth with violence. They don't understand what reasoned dialogue is....

Guess he doesn't.

I don't suppose there has ever been any documented "honour" killings in Italian families?

Well... those tend to be Family business if you get my drift...

And the your possibly legitimate post fails.

C'mon, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the post, which includes muslims, non-muslims, and ex-muslims, fails because I've included a christian right nutcase.

Or was it just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing his name?

Well... those tend to be Family business if you get my drift...
You mean like horses heads in bed family business kinda stuff?

i keep misreading the title of this thread as being "dinosaur killing and raping in london"

You are must assuredly not alone. ;)

C'mon, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the post, which includes muslims, non-muslims, and ex-muslims, fails because I've included a christian right nutcase.

Or was it just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing his name?

Oh he's gone. And probably not coming back.

It's the whole "Oh, I've been called on something I can't defend. Ninja-troll magick, GO!"

Quick wiki search

Pat Robertson:




Guess he doesn't.

Well I was wary of using the term criticizing since cheap shot remarks from christians are meaningless to muslims, it's not actual intellectual "scrutiny" which is the term I prefer.

*Yawn*

Extremist muslims conduct anachronistic, illegal practices due to religion, much as wacko Christians have done for many moons.

Oh he's gone. And probably not coming back.

It's the whole "Oh, I've been called on something I can't defend. Ninja-troll magick, GO!"
Apparently so.

*Sigh* Oh well, best to just ignore the post then.
Well I was wary of using the term criticizing since cheap shot remarks from christians are meaningless to muslims, it's not actual intellectual "scrutiny" which is the term I prefer.
Well, what he is doing is ranting insanely but also critizicing. And these cheap shots aren't meaningless to all muslims, trust me on that.

C'mon, I'm still waiting for you to explain how the post, which includes muslims, non-muslims, and ex-muslims, fails because I've included a christian right nutcase.

Or was it just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing his name?
Your inability to get the point is not my problem.

Your inability to get the point is not my problem.

No, but your inability to actually make a point is.

Well I was wary of using the term criticizing since cheap shot remarks from christians are meaningless to muslims, it's not actual intellectual "scrutiny" which is the term I prefer.

Still no examples of those riots.

You do live in Brit-land, don't you?

Still no examples of those riots.

You do live in Brit-land, don't you?

What riots? Are you talking about the ones from those pictures of Muhammad?

There were huge ones in the middle east.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/04/456821.html?i=1

No, but your inability to actually make a point is.
My point being that Pat Robertson has no credibility.

What riots? Are you talking about the ones from those pictures of Muhammad?

There were huge ones in the middle east.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/04/456821.html?i=1

I know there were ones in the middle fucking east. You made a statement about how people in the UK were afraid to crticise muslims because they'd riot - I said they'd been criticised and they hadn't - you disagreed but failed to come back with examples. UK riots by muslims because of criticism. Thats what you were supposed to come back with.

I know there were ones in the middle fucking east. You made a statement about how people in the UK were afraid to crticise muslims because they'd riot - I said they'd been criticised and they hadn't - you disagreed but failed to come back with examples. UK riots by muslims because of criticism. Thats what you were supposed to come back with.

Why should it matter where the riots are? They still happen and cause havok. And I would never say that muslims would riot in the UK simply from a criticism, thats stupid. Can I see what post you are refering to?

My point being that Pat Robertson has no credibility.

See? It's not so difficult to make a clear point.

Though it begs the question: So? I know he has no credibility. I included him because he's a loon - a christian right loon with an audience. And he criticizes Islam and Muhammad, though in a ranting and hostile manner.

And even if this one guy has no credibility - how does the rest of the post fail because of that? Please explain further.

Whens the last time there was a riot in Britain related to what a politician said specifically about muslims? Or America, for that matter.
.

....to which you replied

There have been many riots over blasphemy in the UK.


Ok.

Give me an example..


Well for one example, I'm sure you are aware of the riots in the UK over the picture of Muhammad as a terrorist right?.


Nope. I remember 40 people ranted alot and a good few were charged after. No arrests were made at the time though, because all they were doing was shouting crap. What did I miss?
..

Start on about page 5 to get context.

....to which you replied









Start on about page 5 to get context.

Ahh, I mean protests not riots.

Nah, they blow up abortion clinics instead :)

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious, but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over seven thousand deadly attacks in just the five years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of believers struggles with ambivalence and a radical clergy that supports the terror.

Ahh, I mean protests not riots.

I'd like to think you're taking the piss. Unfortunately, its too hard to tell....

40 assholes demonstrated over the cartoons.....

What happens when some non-evil hive mind group....like the French farmers, for instance, get pissed off? Do 40 of them turn up and talk shite? Or do they tear up the place, close the ports and cause chaos across most of France? What was that about the Brit poll tax?

And what the fuck is wrong with protests anyway?