NationStates Jolt Archive

He claims that the Tehran Muslim Cartoon Contest represents the entire "Muslim press".

He did not say it was the "entire" Muslim press. But Iranians are, indeed, Muslims? You do acknowledge that point? Calling them "isolated wankers" is a little trivializing, when you are talking about the government of a large nation.

Several hundred people all over Pakistan are protesting.
...
Several hundred. Not thousands.
Several thousands are engaged in training for acts of murder. The street protestors are hardly the ones to be concerned about.

[Tmut]You have your judgment on what would be tactically best, but the people whose lives are on the line have made a different judgment.

Yes. That doesn't make their decision a good one, however
They are better informed than you are, and have a better right than you do to make a judgment about it.

Well I guess if putting Christian symbols in a jar of urine is acceptable, then so is this.

... that confuses me,... I'm in state of mixed feelings, ones that shouldn't ever be mentioned.

Ronald-Ann McDonald?

Good thing you're only interested in making real arguments. I know how upsetting it would be if all you were doing was using bigotted picture spam.

Be careful, apperantly calling out bigotry is not allowed here.

He did not say it was the "entire" Muslim press. But Iranians are, indeed, Muslims? You do acknowledge that point? Calling them "isolated wankers" is a little trivializing, when you are talking about the government of a large nation.
You're fetting me mixed up with another poster. Again.

And he doesn't need to say "entire". His posting history makes that go without saying.

Several thousands are engaged in training for acts of murder. The street protestors are hardly the ones to be concerned about.
Hence you want to antagonize them and give them reasons to join and support the ones in training - who in your mind somehow will be deterred by a reposting of what they see as offensive material.

I still cannot follow your logic.
They are better informed than you are,
It doesn't appear that way.

and have a better right than you do to make a judgment about it.
No, not really.

Polls are never conducted by getting responses from every single member of the population under study, for obvious practical reasons. Statistics is the science of determining by what margin a numerical result from a sample is likely to differ from the hypothetical result of surveying the whole population. The standard deviation on this result is square-root of (.07 times .93 over 702) = .0096, and a spread of two standard deviations on either side of the sample result is a "95% confidence interval". That is, we are 95% confident that the percentage who agree "Target Western civilians over the Danish cartoons" in the entire Palestinian population is not less than 5% nor more than 9%, since if either of those were true, a sample of 702 would be unlikely to give us the results we actually found, as unlikely as that a coin-toss of 10 balanced coins would give us a heads/tail split of 9 or 10 of one, 1 or 0 the other.

The chance that the true proportion, in the whole population, is actually less than 0.1% is a negligibly small 1/500,000,000,000 equivalent to tossing 38 coins and getting all heads.

While it's nice to see some maths on NS, I fear you're missing one of the central points of statistics: the formula you quoted only applies to an unbiased selection. Possible biases which could affect the results of the survey include:

-what percentage of Palestinians own telephones? If only the richer demographic can afford them then obviously you'll get a skewed sample. This is what led statisticians to predict that FDR would lose the 1933 election by a landslide...

-are Palestinians who approve and disapprove of the cartoons equally likely to care enough about the issue to answer a telephone questionaire? The answer to this seems to be a clear 'no': if they feel so strongly about the issue that they think the cartoonists should be murdered then they'll feel strongly enough to answer a few questions; if their response is an apathetic 'meh' then they'll probably just put the phone down.

And on the problems of extrapolating from Palestinian opinion to that of Muslims worldwide, it's worth noting that the Palestinians probably aren't feeling terribly well disposed to the west, or anything associated with the west, in the current political situation. Imagine the reaction if you'd asked a member of the French resistance whether they liked sauerkraut (I'm not necessarily proposing a moral equivalency, just trying to illustrate a problem).

Pakistanis expressing their outrage :p

http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/16/SlideShow/pic13.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/193367/0_28_021706_pakistan_cartoons1.jpg

Some rioting in Denmark too

Danish youths riot for sixth night
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1655946520080216
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Gangs of rioters set fire to cars and garbage trucks in northern Copenhagen on Friday, the sixth night of rioting and vandalism that has spread from the capital to other Danish cities, police said on Saturday.

Five youths were arrested in the capital on Friday after 28 cars and 35 garbage trucks were burned, Copenhagen police duty officer Jakob Kristensen told Reuters.

Danish media said arrests in other towns brought to 29 the number of people police were holding.

Scores of cars and several schools have been vandalized or burned in the past week. Police could give no reason, but said that unusually mild weather and the closure of schools for a winter break might have contributed. [really? :confused:]

Police arrested two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent on Tuesday for planning to kill a cartoonist who drew one of the cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper two years ago that roused a storm of protest in Muslim countries.

Fifteen Danish newspapers reprinted his drawing on Wednesday in protest against the alleged murder plot.

Several hundred Muslims gathered in central Copenhagen on Friday to protest against publication of the cartoon. Most Muslims consider depictions of the founder of Islam offensive.

Social workers said the arrests, the reprinting of the cartoon and protests against its appearance might have fuelled the riots.

Publication of the cartoons two years ago led to protests and rioting in Muslim countries in which at least 50 people were killed and three Danish embassies attacked.

Wow, this is rather like the whole "Freedom Tower" deal. Show your solidarity by presenting the exact same target.

Ummm....so if not all Muslims think like that, where are the protests from the Muslims who DONT think like this.

and before you mention some 'it's not their responsibilty BS' why don't you consider how, when in Germany, the NPD Party plans a parade, the German people organize and protest in turn, outnumbering the NPD members (from what the papers say) by about 100 to 1.

Are these Germans responsible for the actions of the NPD? No! But they still stand up and, every single time, show the world that the NPD does not speak for Germany. If only the 'non-fringe Muslims' could do the same.


When the Irish used to blow up targets in Northern Ireland and some people would go out and show their support around here, I didnt have a counter-protest.

Sometimes, its better just to shake your head and let idiots be idiots...

Ummm....so if not all Muslims think like that, where are the protests from the Muslims who DONT think like this.

and before you mention some 'it's not their responsibilty BS' why don't you consider how, when in Germany, the NPD Party plans a parade, the German people organize and protest in turn, outnumbering the NPD members (from what the papers say) by about 100 to 1.

Are these Germans responsible for the actions of the NPD? No! But they still stand up and, every single time, show the world that the NPD does not speak for Germany. If only the 'non-fringe Muslims' could do the same.

Ummm....so if not all Muslims think like that, where are the protests from the Muslims who DONT think like this.

If not all humans believe I am God, where are the protests from those humans who DON'T?

There aren't any I can see.

Therefore, I am God and everyone believes in Me.

and before you mention some 'it's not their responsibilty BS' why don't you consider how, when in Germany, the NPD Party plans a parade, the German people organize and protest in turn, outnumbering the NPD members (from what the papers say) by about 100 to 1.

Yeah, but ya know, I don't assume (as you seem to) that Not protesting the NPD = supporting the NPD.

Are these Germans responsible for the actions of the NPD? No! But they still stand up and, every single time, show the world that the NPD does not speak for Germany. If only the 'non-fringe Muslims' could do the same.

They probably have other problems, like how they and their family might get murdered if they do, and how they have to work in a shitty post-war third-world country's economy instead of German's ridiculously affluent luxury playboy society where people have so much free time for political protest.

Ummm....so if not all Muslims think like that, where are the protests from the Muslims who DONT think like this.

and before you mention some 'it's not their responsibilty BS' why don't you consider how, when in Germany, the NPD Party plans a parade, the German people organize and protest in turn, outnumbering the NPD members (from what the papers say) by about 100 to 1.

Are these Germans responsible for the actions of the NPD? No! But they still stand up and, every single time, show the world that the NPD does not speak for Germany. If only the 'non-fringe Muslims' could do the same.

It's been answered before in this thread. Nobody cares, not newsworthy, don't care at all.

*Rioting article*
Hell yes, the weather and letting of young people out of school has a lot to do with it. If it was colder, people would stay indoors, and if school was on, more of them would have been working.

Wow, this is rather like the whole "Freedom Tower" deal. Show your solidarity by presenting the exact same target.

I was thinking more in the line of "Human Shields".

Mention anything? No. Use 3 Muslims as an excuse to insult and abuse Muslims in general? Yes. I know you're not following that bit, but please, get off the made up argument and trying talking about what is actually being said.

See, so far, you've suggested I said the opposite of what I said. Changed what I said. Misread what I said. How about a new thing? How about you try responding to the point. I know it's hard, but slow down, reread, and THEN respond. It's called rational behavior. Your welcome for the lesson.

So according to the "non-fringe elements" of the Muslim world, such as yourself, the cartoons should never have been published in the first place, because they were insulting and abusive to Muslims in general. (Since they were the same cartoons that caused the attempted murder in the first place, they must have been "collective punishment"(:rolleyes::D:rolleyes:) for the Muslims the first time around too. Basically, free speech should take into account the sensitivities of every major or minor group who may be offended? I see a similarity between your thinking and the thinking of the "fringe elements."



Hey, do you even read what YOU write, let alone what other people write? And you talk about hyperbole? You seem to be a prime candidate for taking your own advice. Next time, while hurling 'advice' to the others save some for yourself. A large serving.

Hell yes, the weather and letting of young people out of school has a lot to do with it. If it was colder, people would stay indoors, and if school was on, more of them would have been working.

If it was colder there probably would have been more burning of flags and effigies. :p

I've often wondered, where do they get those flags from? There never seems to be a time lapse between offense and flag burning: do they keep an entire portfolio of flags in stock, or do they just pay extra for express delivery?
Go to the UN offices and mandate some or something?

"Excuse me, UN man!"
"Ah, here about the Danish Débâcle?"
"Err yes"
"Take 3 flags, Swan Vestas will be provided on the way out"

So according to the "non-fringe elements" of the Muslim world, such as yourself

FYI Jocabia isn't a Muslim.

Pakistanis expressing their outrage :p

http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/16/SlideShow/pic13.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/images/193367/0_28_021706_pakistan_cartoons1.jpg

I've often wondered, where do they get those flags from? There never seems to be a time lapse between offense and flag burning: do they keep an entire portfolio of flags in stock, or do they just pay extra for express delivery?

1. If not all humans believe I am God, where are the protests from those humans who DON'T?

There aren't any I can see.

Therefore, I am God and everyone believes in Me.



2. Yeah, but ya know, I don't assume (as you seem to) that Not protesting the NPD = supporting the NPD.



3. They probably have other problems, like how they and their family might get murdered if they do, and how they have to work in a shitty post-war third-world country's economy instead of German's ridiculously affluent luxury playboy society where people have so much free time for political protest.

1. Yeah, that's really the same thing.
2. No, but they you might want to SHOW that you oppose the NPD. Ever heard of political protest? Apparently not.
3. :D I laughed. Because that WAS a joke, right? Please tell me you were joking.

Actually, I think you're right. All the protesters of the NPD party do always get flown in on two private helicopters. Plus, all of them admit to having boring lives and never having worked hard a day in their lives, even though they had all the free time in the world.

:headbang:

By God, it must hurt to be this stupid. Do you fall down a lot???

Hell yes, the weather and letting of young people out of school has a lot to do with it. If it was colder, people would stay indoors, and if school was on, more of them would have been working.

...and possibly in part due to the youth center being closed last year. Though:

While last year's riots were caused by youths angry over the closure of the youth centre, this time around authorities were at a loss to explain the violence.

"We don't know exactly what's behind it," Copenhagen police spokesman Flemming Steen Munch told AFP.

The riots began at the weekend in Copenhagen's heavily immigrant populated neighbourhoods of Noerrebro and Vesterbro, but have since spread to several other areas, including Denmark's second biggest city Aarhus and other regions have no significant numbers of immigrants.

According to media reports, some of those taking part in the riots were aged 10 to 12 years old, though police said no one that young had been arrested.

Some have suggested that new regulations that allow police to search people at random for weapons, even without suspicion, have left youths in Noerrebro feeling harassed, while others accused the police of racism.

Munch said those could be the reasons for the riots, but also offered up other explanations.

"They don't like that we are in the area of Noerrebro and looking for weapons on youngsters, they don't like that we are trying to stop the cannabis market, and a few other things have been mentioned too, such as the problem with the Mohammed drawings," he said.
Amossen rejected the notion that the troubles were linked to the Mohammed cartoons.

"That's totally wrong," he said, pointing out that the riots began before the reprinting of the caricatures on Wednesday.
Link (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Denmark_vows_zero_tolerance_after_w_02152008.html)

And someone asked about where the protests are from the Muslims who don't like this...
“Please stop what you’re doing,” Imam Mostafa Chendid, the leader of the Islamic Faith Community, said in an address to young people during Friday’s prayer.

“The Prophet has not taught you to burn down schools, or burn cars or infrastructure. Muhammad has taught us civilization,” Mr. Chendid said.
Link (http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/17/stories/2008021755511300.htm)

Honostly, its you who sounds stupid.
Oh the ironing.

FYI Jocabia isn't a Muslim.

so he/she says. I guess he/she says he/she doesn't spew hyperbole either.:rolleyes:

By God, it must hurt to be this stupid. Do you fall down a lot???
On a related note: Do you flame a lot?

It's been answered before in this thread. Nobody cares, not newsworthy, don't care at all.

But somehow BBC notices when the Germans out-protest the NPD.

Of course, the BBC has always had that Pro-German, ant-Muslim stance that we all know about.

hold the starch please. :p
Heh :D

By God, it must hurt to be this stupid. Do you fall down a lot???

Honostly, its you who sounds stupid.

FYI Jocabia isn't a Muslim.

Also, that's a coincidence. I am a Mulsim. Really.

Check out my blog, at abdullah-ibn-nahyan.blogspot.com

so he/she says. I guess he/she says he/she doesn't spew hyperbole either.:rolleyes:

You're cracking me up. So now treating Muslims like individuals makes me a Muslim? Then I'm also black, male, female, white, Asian, short, tall, fat, thin, poor, rich, etc.

Punishment is about intent. Here they were responding with cartoons from that offend all Muslims as a response to 3.

Quick question... are you Christian? (You'll see the point in a moment)

1. Yeah, that's really the same thing.

Yep. Same reasoning. "X doesn't vociferously oppose Y. Therefore, X supports Y."


2. No, but they you might want to SHOW that you oppose the NPD. Ever heard of political protest? Apparently not.

They might want to, but they don't HAVE to, and if they don't, it still doesn't support the conclusion as above.


3. :D I laughed. Because that WAS a joke, right? Please tell me you were joking.


I'm as serious as dismembered infants rotting in the desert amidst land mines. Which is, of course, something equally to be encountered in Berlin as in Baghdad.


Actually, I think you're right.

I think I am too!

All the protesters of the NPD party do always get flown in on two private helicopters. Plus, all of them admit to having boring lives and never having worked hard a day in their lives, even though they had all the free time in the world.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

:headbang:

By God, it must hurt to be this stupid. Do you fall down a lot???

Do you often call people stupid when they offer arguments you can't even comprehend, let alone counter? Or is it only when your own arguments fail miserably - a sort of weapon of last resort?

You're cracking me up. So now treating Muslims like individuals makes me a Muslim? Then I'm also black, male, female, white, Asian, short, tall, fat, thin, poor, rich, etc.

Punishment is about intent. Here they were responding with cartoons from that offend all Muslims as a response to 3.

Quick question... are you Christian? (You'll see the point in a moment)

Here they were responding to cartoons from that offend all Muslims as a response to 3??? What the hell does that even mean?

Lets assume it means what I think it means, that they responded to cartoons that offend all Muslims as a response to 3.

Quick question....you think the printing of the cartoons was offensive as a response to the death threat, or the printing of the cartoons itself? (You'll see my point in a moment, but I highly doubt that you shall comprehend it.

so he/she says. I guess he/she says he/she doesn't spew hyperbole either.:rolleyes:

Actually I quite like hyperbole. But, hey, why don't you base a few more of your arguments on invalid assumption?

Oh the ironing.

hold the starch please. :p

...

Jocabia, is that you?

No, its me. Leemba.

Also, that's a coincidence. I am a Mulsim. Really.

Check out my blog, at abdullah-ibn-nahyan.blogspot.com

...

Jocabia, is that you?

...

Jocabia, is that you?

I can't tell you how insulted I am. I have more faith in the strength of my argument than to resort to some of the tactics you're seeing from our friend here.

I'm as serious as dismembered infants rotting in the desert amidst land mines. Which is, of course, something equally to be encountered in Berlin as in Baghdad.

That desert in Berlin is a bitch :p

Here they were responding to cartoons from that offend all Muslims as a response to 3??? What the hell does that even mean?

Typo. I intended to delete the from. Deductive reasoning is your friend. I'm quite certain most individuals could have figured it out.


Lets assume it means what I think it means, that they responded to cartoons that offend all Muslims as a response to 3.

Quick question....you think the printing of the cartoons was offensive as a response to the death threat, or the printing of the cartoons itself? (You'll see my point in a moment, but I highly doubt that you shall comprehend it.

I noticed you avoided my question, though? What's the matter? Afraid you're going to get caught being a hypocrite?

Meanwhile, I think they were both offensive, but we're talking about the fact that people applaud the intentional offense of all Muslims in response to 3.

Again, do you have so little faith in the strength of your argument that you require logical fallacies? How sad.

Look who I found protesting

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2453/rageboy20081bo1.jpg

RAGE BOY :mad::mad::mad:

http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/1655-RAGE-BOY-SIGHTING!!!!!!-Anti-Denmark-Day-of-RAGE;-NOW-WORLDWIDE!.html

...and possibly in part due to the youth center being closed last year. Though:



Link (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Denmark_vows_zero_tolerance_after_w_02152008.html)

And someone asked about where the protests are from the Muslims who don't like this...

Link (http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/17/stories/2008021755511300.htm)

Nope. If he hasn't heard of them, then it doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, if someone from a completely different sect who you do not agree with even on the subject of faith does something you don't like, you're responsible for them, right? Have you ever noticed that they never mention the action faith of the people protesting, but just say Muslim, as if it doesn't matter?

But somehow BBC notices when the Germans out-protest the NPD.

Of course, the BBC has always had that Pro-German, ant-Muslim stance that we all know about.

If it lulz... I mean newsworthy, why not? Pacifists and peaceniks who doesn't troll, probably didn't get much attention, now, do they?

Besides this NPD we are talking about is this, right :Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands? What's more lulz, I mean, newsworthy than that? Even the crazies demanding the death of a cartoonist doesn't compare to that and the memories it brought with it.

Typo. I intended to delete the from. Deductive reasoning is your friend. I'm quite certain most individuals could have figured it out.




I noticed you avoided my question, though? What's the matter? Afraid you're going to get caught being a hypocrite?

Meanwhile, I think they were both offensive, but we're talking about the fact that people applaud the intentional offense of all Muslims in response to 3.

Again, do you have so little faith in the strength of your argument that you require logical fallacies? How sad.

What, the question that I was a Christian? Does Abdullah-Ibn-Nahyan sound christian to you. What this hypocrite nonsense, old chap?

That what YOU'RE talking about, or at least what you think you're talking about. Since you find the reprinting of the cartoons was offensive, then you must have found the content of the cartoons itself offensive, otherwise there wouldn't have been any problem (except for the JOOS) anyways. Thus by implying they shouldn't have reprinted the cartoons BECAUSE they were offensive to Muslims, you must think they should NEVER have been printed. Because they are offensive to Muslims. Thank God you're not in charge of making any kind of policy in Denmark or the US. You could put your censorship skills to good use in a Muslim nation of your choice, however.

Again, try taking your own advice, just once. Also, you being of the opinion of there being a logical fallacy does not make it so. Something you don't quite seem to realize. How sad :(

They probably have other problems, like how they and their family might get murdered if they do, and how they have to work in a shitty post-war third-world country's economy instead of German's ridiculously affluent luxury playboy society where people have so much free time for political protest.

You seem to have forgotten what you typed a few minutes ago.

ridiculosly afflent luxury playboy society

two helicopters.....or did you mean more on the level of 1 helicopter per person??

so much free time for political protest

oh, you meant....wait....what DID you mean here???

It wouldn't be the case that you would randomly attack one group in response to a perceived attack on another one, would it? A person of your moral fiber, that just wouldn't make any sense.

You seem to have misplaced this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You might want to read that!

What, the question that I was a Christian? Does Abdullah-Ibn-Nahyan sound christian to you. What this hypocrite nonsense, old chap?

That what YOU'RE talking about, or at least what you think you're talking about. Since you find the reprinting of the cartoons was offensive, then you must have found the content of the cartoons itself offensive, otherwise there wouldn't have been any problem (except for the JOOS) anyways. Thus by implying they shouldn't have reprinted the cartoons BECAUSE they were offensive to Muslims, you must think they should NEVER have been printed. Because they are offensive to Muslims. Thank God you're not in charge of making any kind of policy in Denmark or the US. You could put your censorship skills to good use in a Muslim nation of your choice, however.

Nice little strawman you built there. That I think the papers shouldn't print them isn't censorship. Censorship requires the involvement of the government. I'm asking that they treat Muslims like they matter and not print obviously bigotted material. Is is censorship if I thought the printing of the depiction of black people as having super black skin, big white smiles, and eating watermelon and chicken was racist and irresponsible? I'll help you out here. Nope, it's not. It's called responsiblity. They have the right to print whatever they want. I have the right to tell them what I think when they do it.

And I call bullshit on your claim of being a Muslim. If that were your name, it wouldn't demonstrate anything as far as your faith.


Again, try taking your own advice, just once. Also, you being of the opinion of there being a logical fallacy does not make it so. Something you don't quite seem to realize. How sad :(

You don't know what ad hominem is? You don't know what a strawman is? We do. Everyone here notices your strawmen and ad hominems. You claiming they aren't there isn't going to change anything.

You don't know what ad hominem is? You don't know what a strawman is? We do. Everyone here notices your strawmen and ad hominems. You claiming they aren't there isn't going to change anything.

Everyone. Oh come on, there are thousands of members on the NS forum. Gross generalization of the ridiculous, radical views of 3 of the members upon all the many members of this forum is just bigotry. You can't imply that just because 5% of the members of a certain group think a certain way, they ALL do. That you and a few other NSers don't seem to know what a strawman or ad hominem is doesn't make it right for you to assume that ALL NSers hold such extreme views. You make up the "fringe element" so to speak.


PS. I call bullshit on your claim to be a Muslim, troll.

You don't know what ad hominem is? You don't know what a strawman is? We do. Everyone here notices your strawmen and ad hominems. You claiming they aren't there isn't going to change anything.

Everyone. Oh come on, there are thousands of members on the NS forum. Gross generalization of the ridiculous, radical views of 3 of the members upon all the many members of this forum is just bigotry. You can't imply that just because 5% of the members of a certain group think a certain way, they ALL do. That you and a few other NSers don't seem to know what a strawman or ad hominem is doesn't make it right for you to assume that ALL NSers hold such extreme views. You make up the "fringe element" so to speak.


PS. I call bullshit on your claim of not being Muslim, troll.

Look who I found protesting

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2453/rageboy20081bo1.jpg

RAGE BOY :mad::mad::mad:

http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/1655-RAGE-BOY-SIGHTING!!!!!!-Anti-Denmark-Day-of-RAGE;-NOW-WORLDWIDE!.html

the 30-year-old Kashmiri activist is puzzled, not angered, by his overseas fame. In his first interview with a British newspaper, he says he is carrying out Allah's wishes.

From his home in Fateh Kadal, Malik Angan, he says: "I am not happy with people joking about me or making me into a cartoon, but I have more important things to think about. My protests are for those Muslims who cannot go out onto the streets to cry out against injustice. This is my duty and I believe Allah has decided this for me."

Mr Bhat, a school dropout and former militant with a pro-Pakistan rebel group, has been arrested more than 300 times. He spends days away from his widowed mother, four brothers and his sister, travelling to protests or attending court hearings. But his family, he says, is used to it.

Neighbours describe Mr Bhat as well-mannered, sincere and dedicated. He walks to a protest if it is within six miles (10 km) of his home and hitchhikes or catches a bus if it is further. Sometimes he is the only protester.
The intention of the cartoon is, he claims, to open up debate. "Muslim fanaticism is the problem, not Muslims. Islam is not coming across, to the average person, as a friendly or inviting religion. There must be many Muslims who don't like what's going on, but we're not hearing it."

A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Ibrahim Hooper, is unconvinced. Mr Hooper says: "I find the term Islamic Rage Boy offensive, as would anyone who applied the term to their own faith. It's an Islamophobic product by Muslim-bashers on internet hate sites."

He compares the cartoon to the anti-semitic imagery of 1930s Nazi Germany. "The cartoon is part of an overall growth of anti-Muslim rhetoric in this country. Someone is trying to link Islam with violence and anger and profiting from it."

He quotes a recent Newsweek poll, which paints a complicated portrait of US attitudes towards Muslims: 63% of Americans surveyed believe most Muslims do not condone violence and 40% believe the Koran does not condone violence, but 28% believe it does and 41% felt Muslim culture glorifies suicide.

Mr Hooper says: "While the majority is not hostile towards Muslims, there is a minority who are, and cartoons like this do not help. You cannot combat one form of extremism with another."

Mr Bhat, unaware of the row he has fuelled, vows to carry on protesting. Undeterred by being locked away or being laughed at, he says: "I do not like being called Islamic Rage Boy, it is not nice; but why should I care what people think of me in this life? The afterlife will decide my fate, not a mousemat."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/23/india.digitalmedia

You seem to have forgotten what you typed a few minutes ago.

ridiculosly afflent luxury playboy society

two helicopters.....or did you mean more on the level of 1 helicopter per person??

so much free time for political protest

oh, you meant....wait....what DID you mean here???

It wouldn't be the case that you would randomly attack one group in response to a perceived attack on another one, would it? A person of your moral fiber, that just wouldn't make any sense.

You seem to have misplaced this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You might want to read that!

You know if you make them just a little bigger, maybe people will mistake size for validity. Try that.

Meanwhile, he simply pointed out a very valid difference in affluence among the Germans protesting versus the Muslims you think should be protesting. He's not substituting the argument. You brought it up. He simply pointed out the difference. Seriously, read the link you posted. You're just making yourself look silly. Frankly, I think you're smart enough to recognize how silly some of what your saying is. Slow down. Take a breath. Think about what you're saying. It'll go a long way toward your credibility.

Everyone. Oh come on, there are thousands of members on the NS forum. Gross generalization of the ridiculous, radical views of 3 of the members upon all the many members of this forum is just bigotry. You can't imply that just because 5% of the members of a certain group think a certain way, they ALL do. That you and a few other NSers don't seem to know what a strawman or ad hominem is doesn't make it right for you to assume that ALL NSers hold such extreme views. You make up the "fringe element" so to speak.


PS. I call bullshit on your claim of not being Muslim, troll.

Hmmm... perhaps if you read it again, you'll notice the qualifier. One would hope so, anyway.

Otherwise, it seems like you're avoiding a rational discussion. Fair enough. So the fake blog you put as evidence shouldn't be considered by a rational person to be evidence that you're full of crap? Hmmm...

Nope. If he hasn't heard of them, then it doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, if someone from a completely different sect who you do not agree with even on the subject of faith does something you don't like, you're responsible for them, right? Have you ever noticed that they never mention the action faith of the people protesting, but just say Muslim, as if it doesn't matter?
Yes, I've noticed.

I've also noticed that religion is usually only mentioned when it comes to Muslims. Sometimes Christians too, but mostly Muslims. Never Atheists for some reason...

PS. I call bullshit on your claim to be a Muslim, troll.
When did he ever claim to be muslim?

You know if you make them just a little bigger, maybe people will mistake size for validity. Try that.

Meanwhile, he simply pointed out a very valid difference in affluence among the Germans protesting versus the Muslims you think should be protesting. He's not substituting the argument. You brought it up. He simply pointed out the difference. Seriously, read the link you posted. You're just making yourself look silly. Frankly, I think you're smart enough to recognize how silly some of what your saying is. Slow down. Take a breath. Think about what you're saying. It'll go a long way toward your credibility.

Okay, I'll take your advice. First, apologies for claiming your claims of religion were bullshit. Really. I guess I really do need to take a calming breath.

Second, I am a devout atheist. Really.

Third, I would really like to know why you seem to equate going to a protest with AFFLUENCE. Of all the things. My girlfriend is a medicine student in Germany. Yet she organized a group of people to go to the (already planned) anti-NPD protest. I resent the implication that the people who go to these protest had nothing to do. She is an extremely busy student, and extremely NON-affluent. She took time out of her life to campaign for an issue that is very important to her. It was not because she had all the free time in the world or her riches. And most of the people at the protests, I am sure, would have other things to do.

I don't expect the Iraqi's to go out and protest. Or the Afghanis. But perhaps the millions of Muslims living in the US, or England, or Europe in general. Or in nations like the United Arab Emirates, where every single resident is probably more affluent than the most affluent at the protest in Germany.

Again, apologies to all I offended. I simply cannot stand for intolerance, whether it be Christian or Hindu or Mulsim. Half of the things I hate about Islamic implementations is the treatment OF THEIR OWN!!!

Yes, I've noticed.

I've also noticed that religion is usually only mentioned when it comes to Muslims. Sometimes Christians too, but mostly Muslims. Never Atheists for some reason...

Oh, but it's important enough to mention their overarching faith without ever actually making it clear that many, many sects are never involved in the stuff we here on the news.

When did he ever claim to be muslim?

He intended to say not, which is why there is a second post with that statement.

and if you are wondering whether I am on drugs, regarding the sudden change in opinion....I just saw this Mickey Mouse stuff that someone else had posted. With the killing the Jews stuff. And it made me want to puke. And red with rage. I know it's not right, but I can see (from myself) how images like that can drive people to hate. I mean, come on, an adorable 4 year old saying he is going to kill the Jews. What is an appropriate response to seeing something like that? I'm actually asking....what goes through your mind, for instance, Jacobia?

Okay, I'll take your advice. First, apologies for claiming your claims of religion were bullshit. Really. I guess I really do need to take a calming breath.

Second, I am a devout atheist. Really.

Third, I would really like to know why you seem to equate going to a protest with AFFLUENCE.

I didn't. That was someone else. I simply clarified their position, since you weren't addressing it.



Of all the things. My girlfriend is a medicine student in Germany. Yet she organized a group of people to go to the (already planned) anti-NPD protest. I resent the implication that the people who go to these protest had nothing to do. She is an extremely busy student, and extremely NON-affluent.

People who protest in any way tend to be students or without jobs. It's relatively easy to research. The vast majority of people who are working simply don't have the flexibility of schedule to conduct a protest. It has nothing to do with what they believe. Personally, I don't think it's about affluence though.



She took time out of her life to campaign for an issue that is very important to her. It was not because she had all the free time in the world or her riches. And most of the people at the protests, I am sure, would have other things to do.

I don't expect the Iraqi's to go out and protest. Or the Afghanis. But perhaps the millions of Muslims living in the US, or England, or Europe in general. Or in nations like the United Arab Emirates, where every single resident is probably more affluent than the most affluent at the protest in Germany.

Why would those Muslims protest? What are they protesting? Why are they responsible? If they agree, they wouldn't protest and if they don't, then they're no more responsible for the others than we are.


Again, apologies to all I offended. I simply cannot stand for intolerance, whether it be Christian or Hindu or Mulsim. Half of the things I hate about Islamic implementations is the treatment OF THEIR OWN!!!

I'm not offended. The reason I asked if you were Christian was because I RARELY ever hear anyone suggest that I need to be out protesting Jerry Falwell or the Pope. (I'm Christian.) People don't require that because, frankly, people recognize that there is no Christian hivemind. Yet, that requirement seems to exist with Muslims.

Much better, by the way. You're much more likely to get rational debate this way.

I'm not offended. The reason I asked if you were Christian was because I RARELY ever hear anyone suggest that I need to be out protesting Jerry Falwell or the Pope. (I'm Christian.) People don't require that because, frankly, people recognize that there is no Christian hivemind. Yet, that requirement seems to exist with Muslims.
That's quite a good point, that is.

He intended to say not, which is why there is a second post with that statement.
That... doesn't make more sense...

1. People who protest in any way tend to be students or without jobs. It's relatively easy to research. The vast majority of people who are working simply don't have the flexibility of schedule to conduct a protest. It has nothing to do with what they believe. Personally, I don't think it's about affluence though.


2. Why would those Muslims protest? What are they protesting? Why are they responsible? If they agree, they wouldn't protest and if they don't, then they're no more responsible for the others than we are.




Much better, by the way. You're much more likely to get rational debate this way.

1. That's true....most of the people were students....but some very busy ones!

2. I agree with what you are saying. However, say there was a protest in England, where some Muslims were out on the streets claiming that England should be subject to Jihad because of their sinful ways. I think this has even happened. I equate this situation, to a degree, with the NPD situation I mentioned. I think you agree that the Germans who are non-NPD also have nothing in common with the NPD type, but it's more of a protest AGAINST the NPD. I think that someone SHOULD step up and yell at these guys and say "Listen, you guys make life hard for ME in England, and I don't agree with your bigotry. I DO know that there were once close to a million Turkish people who protested against fundamentalism. And this was in Germany. I love to see that, see them send out the message that they don't tolerate these losers, or at least don't agree with them.

That's quite a good point, that is.


That... doesn't make more sense...

I meant to delete the first one, but perhaps I would now like to delete them both.

and if you are wondering whether I am on drugs, regarding the sudden change in opinion....I just saw this Mickey Mouse stuff that someone else had posted. With the killing the Jews stuff. And it made me want to puke. And red with rage. I know it's not right, but I can see (from myself) how images like that can drive people to hate. I mean, come on, an adorable 4 year old saying he is going to kill the Jews. What is an appropriate response to seeing something like that? I'm actually asking....what goes through your mind, for instance, Jacobia?

Honestly? I think the world is a fucked up place. Just like I think when I see children carrying machetes in Africa or children attending museums that teach them people rode dinosaurs or children wearing rebel flags and swastikas or any number of things. Then I remember that in every one of those places, those groups, etc., I could also find examples that would make me cry for their charity, their morality, their overwhelming "goodness".

I can't let the fact that evil exists color my view of people without incorporating that so many good people exist as well.

That's quite a good point, that is.


That... doesn't make more sense...

Heh. He was trying to say that he doesn't believe I'm not Muslim. It made sense to me.

EDIT: Dude, PNPO. It doesn't make sense for you not to reply when people are volunteering you to go in.

"Heil Pia Kjærsgård! Ned med muslimerne!!!" :headbang:


Seriously, my country gives me headaches more and more often. They've just forgotten about this whole thing down there, why rip open an old wound!?

Besides, we have troops in southern Afghanistan. We need all the goodwill we can get.

Heh. He was trying to say that he doesn't believe I'm not Muslim. It made sense to me.

EDIT: Dude, PNPO. It doesn't make sense for you not to reply when people are volunteering you to go in.

Sorry!

Posted :p

You seem to have forgotten what you typed a few minutes ago.


No, I remember, the problem here is you completely missed the point.


ridiculosly afflent luxury playboy society

two helicopters.....or did you mean more on the level of 1 helicopter per person??

I meant more like how Germans have a GDP per capita of like $31,000-35,000 in comparison to say, Iran with about $8000 or Afghanistan with $800-1300...

Let me tell you, to a guy who makes $800 a year, someone making $31,000 is ridiculously affluent. Number of helicopters doesn't matter, but I'm sure I could dig up some statistics on how many helicopters per capita there are in Germany compared to various "Muslim nations."

so much free time for political protest

oh, you meant....wait....what DID you mean here???

It wouldn't be the case that you would randomly attack one group in response to a perceived attack on another one, would it?

No, it wouldn't. While you're sitting here thinking the fates are just randomly cruel to you, realize that it's not random to most others reading this and that in fact I make a good deal of sense.

And highlighting the ability of the people of Germany versus the people of "Muslim nations" viz a viz economic and political differences between the nations and regions is not an "attack." In response to your questions about number of [reported] protests, it is in fact quite relevant to the discussion at hand. (Even though your premise that lack of protest = support is flawed.)

A person of your moral fiber, that just wouldn't make any sense.

You seem to have misplaced this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

You might want to read that!

I did. Did you?

Thanks. The Palestinian population, not the Muslim population.
Yes, as I said I would certainly like to have data from more Muslim nations (I would expect the percentage of Yes to be a little lower in, say, a Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, and considerably lower in, say, a Turkey, Egypt, or Malaysia), but this is what I could find, quickly. I will search for more data, if anyone is really interested.

As Agenda07 points out, the population is really not even "Palestinians", but "phone-owning Palestinians who are willing to talk to pollsters", but while I think the restriction to Palestinians quite likely skews it towards Yes, eliminating the more impoverished (who have no phones) and more paranoid (who don't talk) from the sample probably skews it toward No.
What lovely little mathematical belly-dances you make.
Why thank you. It is what I do for a living.
Meanwhile, back in reality, a phone survey of a few hundred Palestinians does not support your generalizations regarding the entire Muslim population.
You are mistaken. To test a hypothesis that the chance of getting a Yes answer from a random member of the population is at most 0.1%, it is quite sufficient to poll a sample size like 702, regardless of how large the population is. This is a very important point: error margins depend solely on sample size, not on how the sample size compares to the population size.

Think about it: if it were really true that the chance of any respondent saying Yes was 0.1% or less, then when you ask 702, you should expect about ONE Yes, maybe zero or two; the chance even of three, or four, starts dropping off rapidly (from the hypothetical probability of 0.1% each time, I get roughly a 12% chance of two Yeses out of 702, less than 3% for three Yeses, less than 0.5% for four Yeses, and so on). If you actually get FIFTY Yeses, then either you have seen the fluke of all times (a one in five hundred billion lucky shot), or your hypothesis is wrong.

Of course, saying "the hypothesis is wrong" only means that 0.1% is not the correct proportion *for the population which has been sampled*, that is 1) Palestinians 2) with phones 3) who are willing to talk. It may well be that Palestinians are more willing to attack civilians in this context than non-Palestinian Muslims (indeed I would be surprised if there were no difference); I am less persuaded that phone-owners are more violent than non-phone-owners, or talkative than non-talkative (if anything I expect the reverse); but: do you think Palestinians are SEVENTY TIMES more likely to attack civilians? Questions about whether it is right to attack *Israeli* civilians only get a strong majority Yes in Palestine, but still get from 10 to 30% Yes in other Muslim countries. I predict that the average in Muslim countries in general, assuming I can find more polling data, will prove to be on the order of magnitude of "a few percent", not the "immeasurably tiny fraction of one percent" that some posters here seem to expect.
Moreover, this is even assuming the poll in question was done fairly and accurately, which I notice people who like poll results always assume and people who don't question.
If you are going to attack the reputability of the organization conducting the poll, I would think the burden of proof is on you.

Jocabia: "Is is censorship if I thought the printing of the depiction of black people as having super black skin, big white smiles, and eating watermelon and chicken was racist and irresponsible?"
You've used that analogy a lot, but I don't think it a good one. Terrorist violence, unlike someone's alleged food preferences, is a valid matter of public concern, on which opinions should be expressed; the opinion that it reflects a problem at the heart of the Islamic religion itself, while it may be one that you disagree with and that many Muslims are offended by, is one that needs to be argued about, not violently shot down. A better analogy would be cartoons or postings which caricature the whole Christian religion based on the actions of some of its more lunatic adherents: I am sure you have seen such, and would oppose murdering the perpetrators. Certainly as a gay man I have learned long ago not to expect that there is any such thing as a "right not to be offended", let alone to expect that any such right, if it were granted to me, should rank anywhere near the "right not to be murdered".

Gravlen: "You're fetting me mixed up with another poster. Again."
Sorry. At least you didn't mix me up with Atlantian in retaliation :P
"Hence you want to antagonize them and give them reasons to join and support the ones in training - who in your mind somehow will be deterred by a reposting of what they see as offensive material. I still cannot follow your logic."
Their leaders will understand that attacking newspapers is counterproductive.
They may, of course, attack other targets, who will have to do what they can to protect themselves in turn.
"and have a better right than you do to make a judgment about it.
No, not really"
It is THEIR LIVES which are on the line.

My issue is this; the cartoon is just not that funny. In life you need to pick your battles, and a badly drawn guy with a bomb with a hat is not worth losing your life over.

No, I remember, the problem here is you completely missed the point.



I meant more like how Germans have a GDP per capita of like $31,000-35,000 in comparison to say, Iran with about $8000 or Afghanistan with $800-1300...

Let me tell you, to a guy who makes $800 a year, someone making $31,000 is ridiculously affluent. Number of helicopters doesn't matter, but I'm sure I could dig up some statistics on how many helicopters per capita there are in Germany compared to various "Muslim nations."



No, it wouldn't. While you're sitting here thinking the fates are just randomly cruel to you, realize that it's not random to most others reading this and that in fact I make a good deal of sense.

And highlighting the ability of the people of Germany versus the people of "Muslim nations" viz a viz economic and political differences between the nations and regions is not an "attack." In response to your questions about number of [reported] protests, it is in fact quite relevant to the discussion at hand. (Even though your premise that lack of protest = support is flawed.)



I did. Did you?

No actually, you don't. You seem to imlply that I implied that the Muslims in these nations you talk about should protest. And then go on to argue why this is not so. That is a strawman, at least according to the link you yourself posted. Here is a play-by-play, since you seem to be confused

1. I said more Muslims could be protesting as the Germans protest the NPD.
2. YOU suggest that this means more Muslims in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq should be protesting.
3. Then you argue why they cannot, and say I am wrong.
4. Hence more Muslims cannot be protesting, and my point was wrong.

But you see, my point in 1 =/= your point in 2. There are MANY MILLIONS of Muslims living in countries that are more affluent than Germany. The US, for example. Or the United Arab Emirates. Or the UK , which is close to being just as affluent as Germany. So you see, your point is very much NOT a valid one.

Second, and this point is just as important as my first one: The non-affluent or affluent Muslims somehow seem to have found time to burn effigies and Danish flags around the world (the first time around). It seems rather odd, then, that you would suggest the people of THOSE same nations do not have the time or the money :confused: to go out and protest. Suddenly it seems like these problems that prevent them from protesting against fanaticism seem to temporarily disappear.

I would like your thoughts on these two debunkings.

and referring to the posts made by Tmutarakhan, I remember reading on the BBC about polls taken after the London bombings about a discouragingly large percentage of Muslims LIVING IN the UK thinking it was not a bad thing (the bombings). Now, why would the murder of innocents in the country where you chose to live your life NOT be a bad thing? Again, I am not saying ALL Muslims polled thought that, they obviously didn't, but I find it disturbing anytime more than 1% would have opinions like that.


Oh, and regrading my previous post. The average incomes you talked about suggest much higher employment rates in Germany. That would suggest that many of the people in the other poorer Muslim nations (the one I really never referred to, but you seem to think I did) are unemployed. Which also kind of throws your 'Germans having more time' argument out the window. But please, feel free to answer to my last two Rebuttals made in the previous post first.

You really should readjust your perception of affluence of certain nations, especially of the average citizen therein.

Care to clarify?

Please look up the figures for the US, Germany, the UK, and the UAE before throwing unverified accusations in the air.

And as my second point in the post you are referring to shows, this has nothing to do with affluence or time. It has to do with motivation.

<snop/>You really should readjust your perception of affluence of certain nations, especially of the average citizen therein.

Jocabia: "Is is censorship if I thought the printing of the depiction of black people as having super black skin, big white smiles, and eating watermelon and chicken was racist and irresponsible?"
You've used that analogy a lot, but I don't think it a good one. Terrorist violence, unlike someone's alleged food preferences, is a valid matter of public concern, on which opinions should be expressed; the opinion that it reflects a problem at the heart of the Islamic religion itself, while it may be one that you disagree with and that many Muslims are offended by, is one that needs to be argued about, not violently shot down. A better analogy would be cartoons or postings which caricature the whole Christian religion based on the actions of some of its more lunatic adherents: I am sure you have seen such, and would oppose murdering the perpetrators. Certainly as a gay man I have learned long ago not to expect that there is any such thing as a "right not to be offended", let alone to expect that any such right, if it were granted to me, should rank anywhere near the "right not to be murdered".
You make an excellent point, and this is the main reason this thread drives me mad. It may be that the printing has offended many people. But SURELY the bigger crime here, nay, the ONLY crime, is the attempted murder of someone whose views you do not share. I don't know how Jacobia or Greater T views THIS issue, but from their lack of outrage at this, but extremely vocal outrage at the printing of the cartoons, one would ASSUME that they feel it is a far greater wrong to print offensive cartoons than to attempt the murder of someone or burn cars in response to those cartoons. Which is rather scary...

Honestly? I think the world is a fucked up place. Just like I think when I see children carrying machetes in Africa or children attending museums that teach them people rode dinosaurs or children wearing rebel flags and swastikas or any number of things. Then I remember that in every one of those places, those groups, etc., I could also find examples that would make me cry for their charity, their morality, their overwhelming "goodness".

I can't let the fact that evil exists color my view of people without incorporating that so many good people exist as well.

I completely agree. I too am outraged when I see child warriors in Africa, or the like. But it seems that when this is shown on the news, it is okay. But when the News shows a Muslim parent cutting into the forehead of their child for some religous parade, bathing his face in his own blood, the response from many is 'but not all Muslims are like that'. The showing of the horrible sides of the Islamic faith is just as valid as the showing of the horrible sides of war torn Africa, or the actions of anti-abortionists. (Even though there are far fewer terrorist activities perpetrated by them than by those of the Islamic faith). Many I personally know, Muslims who have grown up here and are extremely liberal in every way, will come up as if to defend this behavior. This apparent inability to criticise their own religion I find rather disturbing. I have no problem in criticising people of my heritage, of my (official) religion, etc. Remember, these people are as Muslim as I am a person of my official religion. Yet the mention of something like the stoning of women brings up a defense, which I find completely baffling. I don't suggest that my friend is like that, I KNOW he couldn't hurt a fly, but like I said, I am baffled that he would say 'but....' and not just 'yeah, that shit is wack....' I am half Indian, and when people mention the Caste system or arranged marraige, I don't reply with 'but not all Indians...' or something like that. I say the Caste system is a horrible form of repression. I know this is just anecdotal, but I have about 10 to 15 Muslim friends, it is the case that with almost all of them that criticism of the radicals brings defense, not condemnation of those radicals. And this anecdotal behavior seems to be supported by the polls, in that the populace often seems to think that there was some justification for the murder of innocents...

Last point before I get back to studies: I have an exam in a week :mad:

Again, this is not meant to offend, it is an open question?

Lets conduct a thought experiment. We are in the Netherlands. We decide to print 2 cartoons, one with Jesus being abused in some sexual way (or something else very offensive) and another with Mohammed being abused in some sexual way. And then release these two pictures to the public....over the world....

Now, in which group do you think there would be protests, and where do you think there would be VIOLENT protests, and calls for death, or even attempts at murder. I'm asking a valid question here, because since this would be available to everyone, the radical elements of both are going to respond.

The answer to the question is rather obvious, I think. Now, this obviously does not say anything about all Muslims, but it doessay something about the religion itself, does it not? I think to say it means nothing is rather illogical, because the mere fact that of the predictability of the experiment implies some kind of statement can be derived here.

So what DOES this say something about?

EDIT: I feel the need to edit those so people can understand that I really DO know that all Muslims aren't like this. That is obvious. The posing of the question, however, does not imply this at all, so please don't accuse this question of doing that. I really do have Muslim friends like I mentioned above. Some of them are my best friends. However, we choose to stay away from political discussions :-)....I really am curious as to what the root of the "problem" I mentioned above is. And I really DO think this is a problem, a tragedy rather, that one can predict something like this.

Sorry. At least you didn't mix me up with Atlantian in retaliation :P
I'm not that mean spitrited :p

Their leaders will understand that attacking newspapers is counterproductive.
They may, of course, attack other targets, who will have to do what they can to protect themselves in turn.
Do you think their leaders really care about the cartoons? I don't. I think what they really want is evidence against the west, proof that the west hates all muslims and wants to destroy Islam. I think they smile to themselves every time the cartoons are reposted.

And I don't think any of the "regular people" protesting would view it that way either. Again I'll claim that it's counterintuitive to think that they'll just accept the percieved offence if only you offend them enough times.


It is THEIR LIVES which are on the line.
Still doesn't give them a better right than me to make a judgment about this. It's their right to make the call, but it's my right to condemn their decision when it in my view is a stupid and counterproductive one.

Wow, 80 people killed in Afghanistan today (Allahu Akbar). It is quite easy to see how the Taliban are fighting for their cause by murdering 80 innocent Afghanis.

What was their cause again. Oh yes, the opression of a people who once used to have a land that was not war torn, where women were not stoned to death or did not need the permission/accompaniment of their son or husband to leave the house. Those Noble anti-civiliz----anti-occupation-ists.

They are fighting for the society that teh Osama himself called the single truly Muslim nation on Earth.


Ps, on the issue that the religion of a murderer or crazy is not mentioned in the news when a Christian or atheist commits a crime.....that is such a lousy argument that there is not even a name for this logical fallacy. The murders are not commited in the NAME of atheism, yet the murder of innocent clubbers in Bali WAS commited in the name of the Almight ALLAH.

As was the destruction of one of the oldest Buddhist statues in the world (Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar) , in Afghanistan. Boy, remember the murder, violene and destruction the destruction of such antique statues caused in the Buddhist world. I'm surprised I came out of those alive.

I wonder if Graveln, Jacobia, and the rest were as vocally outraged at this event as they were at the printing of the cartoons? Or is it only the Muslims who deserve your explicit, vocal support? :rolleyes:

I don't know how Jacobia or Greater T views THIS issue, but from their lack of outrage at this, but extremely vocal outrage at the printing of the cartoons, one would ASSUME that they feel it is a far greater wrong to print offensive cartoons than to attempt the murder of someone or burn cars in response to those cartoons. Which is rather scary...
You know what they say, when you assume...

This thread is about the reposting of the cartoons, not the plot to kill the cartoonist - a plot danish authorities apparently won't be able to prove in a court of law.

Lets conduct a thought experiment. We are in the Netherlands. We decide to print 2 cartoons, one with Jesus being abused in some sexual way (or something else very offensive) and another with Mohammed being abused in some sexual way. And then release these two pictures to the public....over the world....

Now, in which group do you think there would be protests, and where do you think there would be VIOLENT protests, and calls for death, or even attempts at murder. I'm asking a valid question here, because since this would be available to everyone, the radical elements of both are going to respond.
I'd say both...

Sidney Sheinberg, the former president of MCA-Universal, which released "The Last Temptation of Christ," the 1988 film by Martin Scorsese, was skeptical that a Web site would satisfy those who found "The Da Vinci Code" insulting to their religion.

"That suggests that people who have an opinion are going to put the opinion where you tell them to," he said.

Mr. Sheinberg spoke from bruising experience. "The Last Temptation," which depicted Jesus, while on the cross, doubting his faith and fantasizing about a more prosaic life, ignited a firestorm of protest against the studio, and Mr. Sheinberg received death threats, hate mail and even a pig's head mailed to his home at the time.

The former studio chief said he had appealed to various Christian groups before that movie's release but did not succeed in quelling outrage from others. In his experience, he said, the most intense outrage often comes from those who do not bother to read the book or see the movie.
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/movies/09davi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
Holy Blood, Holy Grail has also sold millions of copies, and aroused controversy through its exploration of a theory that Jesus might not have died on the cross but lived, married and had children.

Their research explored whether a secret bloodline existed, and potentially challenged central foundations of Christianity - including the role of women.

It featured societies such as the Knights Templar and Priory of Sion, which are also core to mysteries within The Da Vinci Code.

Anger at Holy Blood, Holy Grail prompted death and bomb threats against the authors and publishers, and Baigent still keeps his address in England a secret.
Link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=9003822)
A fight involving as many as 30 people broke out at a photographic exhibition in the Swedish city of Jonkoping.

The controversy surrounds the Ecco Homo exhibit, which portrays Jesus Christ as a gay man.

...

The Local, a Swedish paper, reports that on Sunday a group of young people tried to set fire to a poster at the Jonkoping cultural centre where Ecco Homo was on display.

The paper said the city is a centre for evangelical Christians.

Staff intervened and a fight broke out, according to the centre's director, Tony el Zouki.
Link (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5190.html)
Christian groups protested ESPN last week when they felt it was slow to take disciplinary action against Jacobson for her anti-Christian tirade on Jan. 11 at a roast in Atlantic City, N.J. There, Jacobson, who was reportedly intoxicated during the event, made such remarks as "F*** Notre Dame," "F***Touchdown Jesus," "F***Jesus."

Both ESPN and Jacobson have called the behavior inappropriate and inexcusable and apologized for the incident. The anchorwoman was suspended for one week.

But some Christian groups say the temporary suspension was not enough and have asked for her to be fired or suspended for one year.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission was working to hold a meeting of pro-family leaders and ESPN's executive leadership. Mike Soltys, executive vice president of Communications for ESPN, however, said no more meetings will be held and no more disciplinary actions will be taken against Jacobson.

"We are very disappointed with ESPN's response to our legitimate concerns," said Dr. Gary L. Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission in a released statement Tuesday. "Christians must respond or expect more of this kind of blasphemy in public in the future.”
Link (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080129/31020_ESPN_Host_Returns_to_Airwaves_after_Anti-Jesus_Tirade.htm)
A radical Kansas-based church plans to protest actor Heath Ledger's funeral over his Academy Award-nominated role in Brokeback Mountain.

The Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka claims Ledger died and is in Hell because he played a gay cowboy in the critically acclaimed Ang Lee film.
Link (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_18864.aspx)
Australian church leaders have condemned a play shortly to open in Sydney depicting Jesus as a gay man who is seduced by Judas, a report said Sunday.

...

Playwright Terrence McNally, who is gay, received death threats when the work was performed in the United States, the newspaper said.
link (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080120-113588/Row-erupts-in-Australia-over-gay-Jesus-play--report)
Hindu extremists attacked Christians celebrating Christmas in eastern India, ransacking and burning at least six village churches. One person was killed.

Four hundred and fifty police were deployed to quell the violence in the remote district of Orissa state where the churches most nothing more than mud and thatch houses were attacked. The violence had eased by yesterday.

There were conflicting reports of what sparked the unrest in Orissa, which has a history of violence against the state's tiny Christian minority. Some reports said Christians had attempted to attack a hardline Hindu leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad group, who led an anti-conversion movement.

"The situation was aggravated by some Christians forcibly stopping the 80-year-old Hindu leader Laxmanananda Saraswati and attempting to attack him," said Giriraj Kishore of the VHP. "When they were prevented from attacking him by his followers, the Christians hit someone with an axe and one Hindu died," he said.

But the Catholic Bishops Conference of India said the fighting began when Hindu extremists objected to a show marking Christmas Eve, believing it was designed to encourage Hindus at the bottom of the religion's caste hierarchy to convert to Christianity.

An argument over the Christmas show got out of hand and some of the Hindus opened fire on the Christians, wounding three of them, said John Dayal, a spokesman for the Bishops Conference.

The Hindus then went on a rampage on Christmas Day, chasing people out of six churches and setting the buildings ablaze, he said.

Later, dozens of people from each community clashed, Mr Dayal said. One person was killed, he added, but could not say if the dead man was a Hindu or Christian. Another 25 people were wounded, the Press Trust of India news agency said.
Ooops, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/hindu-extremists-burn-down-village-churches-766873.html) that last one was about the "religion of peace" Hinduism. Nevermind that one...

Appart from the last one, they're all examples that the radical elements within Christianity are not below answering provocations with threats and violence either.


The answer to the question is rather obvious, I think.
Is it now?


Now, this obviously does not say anything about all Muslims, but it doessay something about the religion itself, does it not? I think to say it means nothing is rather illogical, because the mere fact that of the predictability of the experiment implies some kind of statement can be derived here.
To say it means everything is illogical too. You're forgetting a lot of important factors: Cultural and regional factors come into play. Do they live in a nation of democratic values? Will they be heard if they protest peacefully? Do they see newspapers as free entities, or as an arm of the government? Do they understand the concept of freedom of speech in the context of the western world? Do they percieve it all as just another attack by the west upon Islam? Do they have any reason to see it that way? Etc.


So what DOES this say something about?
People and the societies.

EDIT: I feel the need to edit those so people can understand that I really DO know that all Muslims aren't like this. That is obvious. The posing of the question, however, does not imply this at all, so please don't accuse this question of doing that. I really do have Muslim friends like I mentioned above. Some of them are my best friends. However, we choose to stay away from political discussions :-)....I really am curious as to what the root of the "problem" I mentioned above is. And I really DO think this is a problem, a tragedy rather, that one can predict something like this.
Maybe you should start by sitting down with your friends and asking them.

I wonder if Graveln, Jacobia, and the rest were as vocally outraged at this event as they were at the printing of the cartoons? Or is it only the Muslims who deserve your explicit, vocal support? :rolleyes:

Make a thred on it and write my name right and you might find out...

While you're at it, make a thread about the people killed in the recent bombing in Pakistan, the unrest in Kenya, the immigrants beaten up in Germany or the Germans beaten up by immigrants, the homosexuals beaten by Christians in Russia, the Christians attacked in Nigeria, the women abused in Saudi Arabia... The victims will all get my vocal support.

So your assumption fails completely.

To say it means everything is illogical too. You're forgetting a lot of important factors: Cultural and regional factors come into play. Do they live in a nation of democratic values? Will they be heard if they protest peacefully? Do they see newspapers as free entities, or as an arm of the government? Do they understand the concept of freedom of speech in the context of the western world? Do they percieve it all as just another attack by the west upon Islam? Do they have any reason to see it that way? Etc.

Yeah, what Graveln here means is that they are simply not evolved enough, they don't understand concepts such as free speech and democracy. Give them a few millenia.

Plus, Graveln fails to mention how many people were actually killed in these protests he serves as examples. Perhaps he should mention how many of each religion has commited terrorist acts in this PAST WEEK. And he will take you arround a merry-go-round of society, people, culture, moral relativisim, dizzgin you till you puke, wihtout answering the question: How many people have been murdered in :

1. Darfur (this one really overshadows ALL the rest)
2. Saudi Arabia (terrorist acts plus public executions under the name of
Islamic Law)
2. Iran (public executions under the name of Islamic Law)
4. Iraq
5. Afghanistan
6. Madrid
7. London
8. New York
9. Washington
10. Bali

and more, in the name of Islam. And compare it to the number killed by followers of ALL the other religions, IN THE NAME of those religions, in the past decade.

He will say this means nothing, taking you on his merry-go-round, but the facts really speak for themselves.

Make a thred on it and write my name right and you might find out...

While you're at it, make a thread about the people killed in the recent bombing in Pakistan, the unrest in Kenya, the immigrants beaten up in Germany or the Germans beaten up by immigrants, the homosexuals beaten by Christians in Russia, the Christians attacked in Nigeria, the women abused in Saudi Arabia... The victims will all get my vocal support.

So your assumption fails completely.

Done and DONE

Yeah, what Graveln here means is that they are simply not evolved enough, they don't understand concepts such as free speech and democracy. Give them a few millenia.
Nice straw man. It must have taken you ages to build it. Tell me, do you use twine or string?

Plus, Graveln fails to mention how many people were actually killed in these protests he serves as examples.
...because that wasn't the point, now, was it.

Perhaps he should mention how many of each religion has commited terrorist acts in this PAST WEEK.
Why? It wouldn't be relevant to this thread.

And he will take you arround a merry-go-round of society, people, culture, moral relativisim, dizzgin you till you puke,
Nono, it won't be anything like reading your post. And who are you talking to?

wihtout answering the question: How many people have been murdered in:
Because your question is irrelevant to this thread.

1. Darfur (this one really overshadows ALL the rest)
And how much of this is based on religion anyway?
The various tribes that have been the object of attacks and killings (chiefly the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa tribes) do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct from the ethnic group to which persons or militias that attack them belong. They speak the same language (Arabic) and embrace the same religion(Islam)
Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, PDF format - Page 129. (http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf#search=%22un%20report%20darfur%20genocide%22)

2. Saudi Arabia (terrorist acts plus public executions under the name of Islamic Law)
You mean Saudi Arabian law? Acts of terror against muslims in Suadi Arabia? Acts against the ruling authoritarian regime, the close allies of the US? Or what?

2. Iran (public executions under the name of Islamic Law)
You mean Iranian law? I forget... Less than China at least.

4. Iraq
5. Afghanistan
6. Madrid
7. London
8. New York
9. Washington
10. Bali

*Yawns*

and more, in the name of Islam. And compare it to the number killed by followers of ALL the other religions, IN THE NAME of those religions, in the past decade.
The minority does not speak for the majority.

He will say this means nothing, taking you on his merry-go-round, but the facts really speak for themselves.
What facts? Your post is dripping with ignorance and fallacies.

And how hard is it to spell my name, really?

Nice straw man. It must have taken you ages to build it. Tell me, do you use twine or string?


...because that wasn't the point, now, was it.


Why? It wouldn't be relevant to this thread.


Nono, it won't be anything like reading your post. And who are you talking to?


Because your question is irrelevant to this thread.


And how much of this is based on religion anyway?

Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, PDF format - Page 129. (http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf#search=%22un%20report%20darfur%20genocide%22)


You mean Saudi Arabian law? Acts of terror against muslims in Suadi Arabia? Acts against the ruling authoritarian regime, the close allies of the US? Or what?


You mean Iranian law? I forget... Less than China at least.


*Yawns*


The minority does not speak for the majority.


What facts? Your post is dripping with ignorance and fallacies.

And how hard is it to spell my name, really?


The minority does not speak for the majority....YAWN

Since that appears to be an appropriate response....Gravlen.

The killers in Darfur were all Arab-Muslims, economically supplied by the Arabs. It is irrelevant who the kill-ees are, in the context of my argument.

The facts that only Muslims have commited terrorist acts on large scale, no other religion. The question isn't about majority or minority. The question is how many large-scale, planned terrorist attacks have taken place in the name of Islam vs. in the name of other religions. Those nations I listed are examples, whether you like it or not, where innocents were murdered. How hard is it to get the difference....not whether they make the majority, but that the exclusive majority for such large scale acts of terror is enjoyed by the faith of Islam.

The facts that only Muslims have commited terrorist acts on large scale, no other religion. The question isn't about majority or minority. The question is how many large-scale, planned terrorist attacks have taken place in the name of Islam vs. in the name of other religions. Those nations I listed are examples, whether you like it or not, where innocents were murdered. How hard is it to get the difference....not whether they make the majority, but that the exclusive majority for such large scale acts of terror is enjoyed by the faith of Islam.

In the name of Islam? Or in the name of an Islamic STATE. There's a difference.

The minority does not speak for the majority....YAWN

Since that appears to be an appropriate response....Gravlen.

The killers in Darfur were all Arab-Muslims, economically supplied by the Arabs. It is irrelevant who the kill-ees are, in the context of my argument.

The facts that only Muslims have commited terrorist acts on large scale, no other religion. The question isn't about majority or minority. The question is how many large-scale, planned terrorist attacks have taken place in the name of Islam vs. in the name of other religions. Those nations I listed are examples, whether you like it or not, where innocents were murdered. How hard is it to get the difference....not whether they make the majority, but that the exclusive majority for such large scale acts of terror is enjoyed by the faith of Islam.

I won't go into religious wars and persecutions done by others in the past (the Inquisition and all that jazz), near-past (Holocaust, which would count as a Christian act under your definition) and present (Lords Resistance Army). And since you reject the impact of any and all other factors than religion, I see no reason to respond to you further. It would be a pointless hijacking of the thread to try to convince you that the Muslim Borg-Collective doesn't exist.

I won't go into religious wars and persecutions done by others in the past (the Inquisition and all that jazz), near-past (Holocaust, which would count as a Christian act under your definition) and present (Lords Resistance Army). And since you reject the impact of any and all other factors than religion, I see no reason to respond to you further. It would be a pointless hijacking of the thread to try to convince you that the Muslim Borg-Collective doesn't exist.

LOL

You're really comparing the number of people killed by the LRA with the number of people killed by planned large scale Muslim terrorist attacks....REALLY????






PS. Really?

I won't go into religious wars and persecutions done by others in the past (the Inquisition and all that jazz), near-past (Holocaust, which would count as a Christian act under your definition) and present (Lords Resistance Army). And since you reject the impact of any and all other factors than religion, I see no reason to respond to you further. It would be a pointless hijacking of the thread to try to convince you that the Muslim Borg-Collective doesn't exist.

http://magesy.ws/uploads/posts/1184273353_borgdrones.jpg

You're really lumping all of the different acts of terrorist acts together under "Muslim terrorist attacks"?

And you expect that the LRA have killed less than 3,000 civilians?

3,000. Where did you get this number from? Is this a game? Can I play???

2 billion.

Your turn!!!!:D

Yeah, because they were all committed in the name of Allah, and were most likely preceded by the phrase Allahu Akbar shortly before the execution of the said terrorist act.

http://magesy.ws/uploads/posts/1184273353_borgdrones.jpg

Thanks :D

I fixed it up a bit...

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8869/muslek4.jpg

You're really lumping all of the different acts of terrorist acts together under "Muslim terrorist attacks"?

And you expect that the LRA have killed less than 3,000 civilians?

I assume the Janjaweed alone killed many more than the LRA.

But it seems clear now that even the Janjaweed do not, in your mind, deserve condemnation. That is reserved for cartoonists. The people of Sudan do not deserve your vocal support. That is reserved for the Janjaweed....they were probably pretty mad about the cartoons too...

Woah! I Time-warped myself! :eek:

LOL

You're really comparing the number of people killed by the LRA with the number of people killed by planned large scale Muslim terrorist attacks....REALLY????

PS. Really?
You're really lumping all of the different acts of terrorist acts together under "Muslim terrorist attacks"?

And you expect that the LRA have killed less than 3,000 civilians?

Thanks :D

I fixed it up a bit...

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8869/muslek4.jpg

Hey, that pictures just as good as that Eurabia...No Thanks one!

3,000. Where did you get this number from? Is this a game? Can I play???
Aparently you're lacking the necessary tools to play.

Does the date September 11th 2001 mean anything to you?

Yeah, because they were all committed in the name of Allah, and were most likely preceded by the phrase Allahu Akbar shortly before the execution of the said terrorist act.
Unprovable assumption.

Also fails to adress the motivation behind the attacks.

Hey, that pictures just as good as that Eurabia...No Thanks one!

Display your ignorance proudly is what I always advice ;)

Aparently you're lacking the necessary tools to play.

Does the date September 11th 2001 mean anything to you?


Unprovable assumption.

Also fails to adress the motivation behind the attacks.

It would be a relatively pleasant world we live in if 9/11 were the only terrorist act committed in the name of ALLAH. I think it is you that could simply not comprehend that the number 3000 isn't the only significant number.

Actually, the Bali Bomber said that repeatedly and smiled while being sentenced to death or carried away, I forget which one. The Buddhist statue destroyers said that while bombing it, saw it on a documentary. All beheading videos apparently have the golly Muslims chanting the phrase while committing this HOLY act.

Besides, that wasn't the point, and I think even you know it. :p The point was they were all large scale terrorist attacks carried out my Muslim organizations.

The motivations.....you mean the non-religious, but by a freakish coincidence only affecting the Muslims motivations....the socio-political-economical-racial-moral-relativistic motivations.

THOSE motivations.

The motivations.....you mean the non-religious, but by a freakish coincidence only affecting the Muslims motivations....the socio-political-economical-racial-moral-relativistic motivations.

THOSE motivations.

No.

Unprovable assumption.

Also fails to adress the motivation behind the attacks.

Also, actually, any video of any filmed suicide bombing or the like, in Iraq or Afghanistan or the like, ALWAYS includes the phrase ALLAHU Akbar being bellowed during the filming of the execution of the terrorist act. I can post about 20 links showing this, giving credibility to my statement that these acts were "probably preceded...." by the phrase ALLAHU Akbar.

No.

Yes

Yes

Not at all, you mind reader you.

Since when where IRA, FARC, the Tamil Tigers or RAF muslim?

Last point before I get back to studies: I have an exam in a week :mad:

Again, this is not meant to offend, it is an open question?

Lets conduct a thought experiment. We are in the Netherlands. We decide to print 2 cartoons, one with Jesus being abused in some sexual way (or something else very offensive) and another with Mohammed being abused in some sexual way. And then release these two pictures to the public....over the world....

Now, in which group do you think there would be protests, and where do you think there would be VIOLENT protests, and calls for death, or even attempts at murder. I'm asking a valid question here, because since this would be available to everyone, the radical elements of both are going to respond.

The answer to the question is rather obvious, I think. Now, this obviously does not say anything about all Muslims, but it doessay something about the religion itself, does it not? I think to say it means nothing is rather illogical, because the mere fact that of the predictability of the experiment implies some kind of statement can be derived here.

So what DOES this say something about?

EDIT: I feel the need to edit those so people can understand that I really DO know that all Muslims aren't like this. That is obvious. The posing of the question, however, does not imply this at all, so please don't accuse this question of doing that. I really do have Muslim friends like I mentioned above. Some of them are my best friends. However, we choose to stay away from political discussions :-)....I really am curious as to what the root of the "problem" I mentioned above is. And I really DO think this is a problem, a tragedy rather, that one can predict something like this.

Well, although not specifically cartoon art, I remember a few years back there being a photograph by Serreno called "Piss Christ". It was a cruxified Jesus in a bottle of the artist's own urine....and the uproar which came about from that. Although, when I googled, one catholic nun (art critic) actually applauded the symbolism in the photo of how we've demeaned Christ in society. And I remember quite a few christians getting upset about Madonna using a cruxific in her tour...But, I don't really remember anything more threatening than damning them to hell for blasphemy.
I don't remember any protest about this type of expression leading to violent protests, with deaths and further death threats...
I've looked at the cartoons that were printed. And I could see how Muslims would be offended...but offended enough to want people killed for publishing it?
Thank goodness it was Muhammed with a bomb for a turban, and devil horns instead of a Muhammed swimming in a bottle of piss.....

Well, although not specifically cartoon art, I remember a few years back there being a photograph by Serreno called "Piss Christ". It was a cruxified Jesus in a bottle of the artist's own urine....and the uproar which came about from that. Although, when I googled, one catholic nun (art critic) actually applauded the symbolism in the photo of how we've demeaned Christ in society. And I remember quite a few christians getting upset about Madonna using a cruxific in her tour...But, I don't really remember anything more threatening than damning them to hell for blasphemy.
I don't remember any protest about this type of expression leading to violent protests, with deaths and further death threats...
Earlier in the thread I've posted examples of death threats and violence due to these kinds of expressions - some examples can be found here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13458234&postcount=575)

I've looked at the cartoons that were printed. And I could see how Muslims would be offended...but offended enough to want people killed for publishing it?
Thank goodness it was Muhammed with a bomb for a turban, and devil horns instead of a Muhammed swimming in a bottle of piss.....
They shouldn't react with threats and violence regardless. That is unacceptable.

Not at all, you mind reader you.

Since when where IRA, FARC, the Tamil Tigers or RAF muslim?

They weren't responsible for the acts I mentioned. And they didn't share ANY common ideology, the groups you mention. Yet those who blow, shoot, burn, behead them self or others up in the name of Allah have killed far more than all those groups you mention put together. (Which, I shall mention again, have nothing to do with each other)

They shouldn't react with threats and violence regardless. That is unacceptable.

Wow...how did HE (or she) get you to say it, when I couldn't. The admission that they OVERREACTED. That the response was not even in the league of the action inciting it.

Earlier in the thread I've posted examples of death threats and violence due to these kinds of expressions - some examples can be found here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13458234&postcount=575)


They shouldn't react with threats and violence regardless. That is unacceptable.

but he didn't post anything about ACTUAL deaths. How careless of him.

Wow...how did HE (or she) get you to say it, when I couldn't.
Perhaps because, as far as any outsider can gather, your anger is seeping through into your posting, which makes you a little less than perfectly coherent. Calm down a bit and you might find a better reception.

Earlier in the thread I've posted examples of death threats and violence due to these kinds of expressions - some examples can be found here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13458234&postcount=575)


They shouldn't react with threats and violence regardless. That is unacceptable.

Okay I've read your link.....kinda depressing really :(
But, and not to say that any of that behaviour is excusable...but did anyone die from those protests?...other than the innocent pig. Poor pig :(
I completely agree that threats and violence are not acceptable. It would be a scary world if people didnt have freedom to ideas and speech.
As a christian, I think we need to grow thicker skins and grow up.

They weren't responsible for the acts I mentioned. And they didn't share ANY common ideology, the groups you mention. Yet those who blow, shoot, burn, behead them self or others up in the name of Allah have killed far more than all those groups you mention put together. (Which, I shall mention again, have nothing to do with each other)
So you can't explain the motivations, especially the non-religious motivations behind the attacks. Quite.

And you don't differentiate between the suicide bomber who fights Israel and the person who flies a plane into an American building to fight against American presence in and support for Suadi Arabia - even if they are of the same religious persuation (Mind you, one might be Sunni and another Shi'a, so...) their motivations arecompletely different. You fail to acknowledge that in the slightest.

Wow...how did HE (or she) get you to say it, when I couldn't. The admission that they OVERREACTED. That the response was not even in the league of the action inciting it.
1. I have stated it before in the thread, if you had bothered to read it.

2. You never asked, you just assumed.

3. I have no respect for you, so I fail to see why I should cater to your whims.
but he didn't post anything about ACTUAL deaths. How careless of him.
Why should I? That was never the point - and it's not the point of this thread either.

Perhaps because, as far as any outsider can gather, your anger is seeping through into your posting, which makes you a little less than perfectly coherent. Calm down a bit and you might find a better reception.
Indeed. Good advice.
Okay I've read your link.....kinda depressing really :(
But, and not to say that any of that behaviour is excusable...but did anyone die from those protests?...other than the innocent pig. Poor pig :(
I completely agree that threats and violence are not acceptable. It would be a scary world if people didnt have freedom to ideas and speech.
As a christian, I think we need to grow thicker skins and grow up.
I think we all need to grow thicker skins.

And nobody died as far as I could tell - except the one unconfirmed that was axed to death by a Christian - but that's not really the point either. The point is that the riots and death threats isn't something that just happens in Islam, as some in this thread seem to suggest.

Why should I? That was never the point - and it's not the point of this thread either.



Of course, it wasn't the point...so you didn't mention it. But neither was the question posed in the first place, and yet you seemed to have answered that.

Strange.

Yeah, sure, the hard facts that within the last year, more people of Islamic faith have spontaneously combusted than people of all other religions combined sure don't support your theory of there being no such trend in Islam.

It really is infuriating when the facts aren't on your side, isn't it. Not that I would know :-)

It really is infuriating when the facts aren't on your side, isn't it. Not that I would know :-)

Of course you wouldn't, as you seem to be lucky enough to have avoided all dealings with facts completely.

Of course, it wasn't the point...so you didn't mention it. But neither was the question posed in the first place, and yet you seemed to have answered that.

Strange.

Yeah, sure, the hard facts that within the last year, more people of Islamic faith have spontaneously combusted than people of all other religions combined sure don't support your theory of there being no such trend in Islam.

It really is infuriating when the facts aren't on your side, isn't it. Not that I would know :-)

Well, if you're going to use tenuous connections to faith to include Darfur, then you're going to have to include Congo in the other religions column.

Let's put AIDS deaths in the Christianity column since they are teaching in Africa that condoms don't work.

The USA is predominantly Christian so we have to include all of the state-sponsored deaths. How many deaths is that?

Well, sources vary, but since 1990 the death toll is argued to be between 350,000 to 1,000,000 just from the embargo of Iraq ...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

From the war, most have the total numbers over 655,000.

So let's just take a fair number at a million and a half. 1,500,000 deaths. 655,000 of which was in response to a terrorist attack that claimed 3,000. You add in the war in Afghanistan and you can up that number over 800,000 to settle a 3,000 person debt.

Then, of course, not only did the US attack Afghanistan, but we installed the government there 30 years ago, so that goes back in the other column.

What religion is Belgium, because Darfur is so clearly in their column that it hurts?

Shall I keep going?

Your overly simplistic view of the world and that of the puppet also arguing does your argument a disservice. Pretending that all those deaths in places of political, not religious, strife can be attributed to Islam is a denial of truth.

It seems we've all forgotten about Kosovo. The majority, Muslim, unabashadley PRO WESTERN NEWLEY INDEPENDENT STATE :):):):):D

Well, if you're going to use tenuous connections to faith to include Darfur, then you're going to have to include Congo in the other religions column.

Let's put AIDS deaths in the Christianity column since they are teaching in Africa that condoms don't work.

The USA is predominantly Christian so we have to include all of the state-sponsored deaths. How many deaths is that?

Well, sources vary, but since 1990 the death toll is argued to be between 350,000 to 1,000,000 just from the embargo of Iraq ...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

From the war, most have the total numbers over 655,000.

So let's just take a fair number at a million and a half. 1,500,000 deaths. 655,000 of which was in response to a terrorist attack that claimed 3,000. You add in the war in Afghanistan and you can up that number over 800,000 to settle a 3,000 person debt.

Then, of course, not only did the US attack Afghanistan, but we installed the government there 30 years ago, so that goes back in the other column.

What religion is Belgium, because Darfur is so clearly in their column that it hurts?

Shall I keep going?

Your overly simplistic view of the world and that of the puppet also arguing does your argument a disservice. Pretending that all those deaths in places of political, not religious, strife can be attributed to Islam is a denial of truth.

What about the simplistic view that religion is not the issue either. The Darfur genocide IS being carried out by Arabic Muslims, like it or not. And there IS a very large correlation between Islam and these issues. If they were not religious based acts, then you would have to chalk it up to big-fucking-coincidence, which is ridiculous.

Deaths related to the embargo of a country.....are terrorism in your books....okaaaayyy

You can compare execution carried out by the state on its prisoners with executions carried out in Iran.....which I would also like to have numbers on

The number of dead in Iraq.....you mean that bullshit lancet figure...and how many of those deaths are acutally due to the EXACT same AllahBorg???? How many of them are Muslim on Muslim killings or bombings. How many of them were INTENTIONALLY caused by the US.

Apples and Oranges mate!

Let's put AIDS deaths in the Christianity column since they are teaching in Africa that condoms don't work.

Most Africans who oppose condoms do so for reasons othan than religion. Namely, because they are against birth control.

Then, of course, not only did the US attack Afghanistan, but we installed the government there 30 years ago, so that goes back in the other column.

What the hell are you talking about?

Hello...again, I have a question......

Why is it that all the Christian Charities in American choose to help people all over the world, while in Kuwait (and the ME in general), where I lived for about 5 years, the only major charity founded there is the Red Crescent, which only sends help to Muslims in need....Palestine, African Muslims....I mean, these are the rational, helpful ones....NOT the fanatics. Why does the main charity only focus on helping their own (even though, not all Muslims can be treated simply like Muslims, right?) The question is not why they choose to help Muslims, but why ONLY them. The red cross goes whereever it is needed, as do numerous other Christian charities here in the US.

I was just watching a documentary about European women going into Afghanistan, putting their life in danger to help women there? Why must the only major charity in the ME only help Moslems? Isnt that bigotry? From completely clear headed, rational Moslems?

The Darfur genocide IS being carried out by Arabic Muslims, like it or not. And there IS a very large correlation between Islam and these issues. If they were not religious based acts, then you would have to chalk it up to big-fucking-coincidence, which is ridiculous.
You don't understand. The Iraq war is carried out by Anglo Christians too, but that doesn't mean that it's based on religion. Darfur is an ethnic conflict. It's North Africans against black Africans in a fight about trying to keep the North African control over the state of Sudan after it had to make substantial concessions to black African militias in the south of the country.

Anyways, in the other thread you started I didn't get to respond. What I meant to say is that getting outraged, venting and generally throwing tantrums is stupid, regardless of who does it. If some Muslims feel their religion is the particular chosen one and haven't gotten their head around the western ideas of religious liberalism, then that's sad. If they start damaging health and property of others because of it, it's unacceptable and the law is already capable of dealing with that accordingly.

The question is whether we should stoop to the same level and start getting outraged at things they do or believe. Of course not, because if you stop supporting the inherent right of all religious groups to believe in whatever the hell they want, then you haven't gotten your head around western religious liberalism either.

And as for the Danish media, they knew full well what sort of a publicity stunt this was. Of course it was within their rights to republish the stuff, and of course it was an incredibly stupid (apart from offensive, unhelpful and divisive) thing to do. Just because I have the right to run through the city today and call everyone names doesn't mean I should be congratulated for doing it. That's the sort of stuff we teach our little kids, so why doesn't it apply to newspaper editors?

Most Africans who oppose condoms do so for reasons othan than religion. Namely, because they are against birth control.

Why are they against birth control is the question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999747/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

I can keep going.


What the hell are you talking about?

You're not aware that we aided the Taliban against the Russians? Seriously?

Hello...again, I have a question......

Why is it that all the Christian Charities in American choose to help people all over the world, while in Kuwait (and the ME in general), where I lived for about 5 years, the only major charity founded there is the Red Crescent, which only sends help to Muslims in need....Palestine, African Muslims....I mean, these are the rational, helpful ones....NOT the fanatics. Why does the main charity only focus on helping their own (even though, not all Muslims can be treated simply like Muslims, right?) The question is not why they choose to help Muslims, but why ONLY them. The red cross goes whereever it is needed, as do numerous other Christian charities here in the US.

I was just watching a documentary about European women going into Afghanistan, putting their life in danger to help women there? Why must the only major charity in the ME only help Moslems? Isnt that bigotry? From completely clear headed, rational Moslems?

Seriously, how do you take silly things like this and extrapolate this into a grandiose charge against Muslims, in general. People who don't protest are not supporting terrorism. People who don't create charities aren't a blight on the world.

It doesn't matter how much you skew or misrepresent the information, it's not a statement about Islam, in general.

The people who run the RC do not represent all Muslim or even most of them. Terrorists don't represent all Muslims or even most of them. The fact that you want to turn either one of these fraction groups into the majority is evidence of a failure to apply logic.

Why are they against birth control is the question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999747/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/30/usa.aids

I can keep going.

Then explain why non-Christians and animists are also often against birth control.

You're not aware that we aided the Taliban against the Russians? Seriously?

You said "installed a government 30 years ago," or something to that effect.

What about the simplistic view that religion is not the issue either. The Darfur genocide IS being carried out by Arabic Muslims, like it or not. And there IS a very large correlation between Islam and these issues. If they were not religious based acts, then you would have to chalk it up to big-fucking-coincidence, which is ridiculous.

Deaths related to the embargo of a country.....are terrorism in your books....okaaaayyy

You can compare execution carried out by the state on its prisoners with executions carried out in Iran.....which I would also like to have numbers on

The number of dead in Iraq.....you mean that bullshit lancet figure...and how many of those deaths are acutally due to the EXACT same AllahBorg???? How many of them are Muslim on Muslim killings or bombings. How many of them were INTENTIONALLY caused by the US.

Apples and Oranges mate!

It's not a coincidence. It's evidence of a cultural problem in many of those places that are completely unrelated to Islam. Nearly all of Africa is going through a huge period of strife and violence whether Muslim or otherwise. That's also not a coincidence. That you would point to the fighting that is occurring througout Africa and only mention the Muslim bits is evidence you're not actually trying to stick a rational assessment of the facts. The fighting in Africa was sparked by the methodology of colonialism there, followed by quickly and indescriminately abandoning them, pulling up the entire governmental structures.

Who cares if they were INTENTIONALLY caused by the US, they were CAUSED by the US? Prior to our involvement, there wasn't this problem. We through the area into turmoil. Pinning that on Muslims is a denial of fact.

Meanwhile, you keep burning that strawman. I said deaths, not terrorism. Deaths from an embargo are not terrorism. Nor are death sentences carried out by the government of Iran. You mentioned a bunch of deaths most of which doesn't qualify as terrorism. So did I.

Then explain why non-Christians and animists are also often against birth control.

I don't have to. It's widely accepted that Christians have contributed to the problem in Africa. If you want to dispute this, you're welcome to, but the burden is on you. That some people would be against it anyway, isn't evidence that some of the most powerful forces in Africa have discouraged proper education on AIDS and prevention.

(Keep in mind, the link between Christian groups and the spread of aids is at least as rational as the link between Islam and Darfur. Hell, the link between Belgium and Darfur is MUCH more rations.)


You said "installed a government 30 years ago," or something to that effect.

Yes, I'm aware. I was talking about when we started helping them, not necessarily when they finally gained power.

Yes, I'm aware. I was talking about when we started helping them, not necessarily when they finally gained power.

Oh, okay.

Use the mountains of knowledge at their fingertips, here. You're killing your own argument, Leemba.

http://www.ifrc.org/who/

The Red Crescent is an arm of the Red Cross.

What about the simplistic view that religion is not the issue either. The Darfur genocide IS being carried out by Arabic Muslims, like it or not. And there IS a very large correlation between Islam and these issues. If they were not religious based acts, then you would have to chalk it up to big-fucking-coincidence, which is ridiculous.

Deaths related to the embargo of a country.....are terrorism in your books....okaaaayyy

You can compare execution carried out by the state on its prisoners with executions carried out in Iran.....which I would also like to have numbers on

The number of dead in Iraq.....you mean that bullshit lancet figure...and how many of those deaths are acutally due to the EXACT same AllahBorg???? How many of them are Muslim on Muslim killings or bombings. How many of them were INTENTIONALLY caused by the US.

Apples and Oranges mate!

I smell a BNP

It's not a coincidence. It's evidence of a cultural problem in many of those places that are completely unrelated to Islam. Nearly all of Africa is going through a huge period of strife and violence whether Muslim or otherwise. That's also not a coincidence. That you would point to the fighting that is occurring througout Africa and only mention the Muslim bits is evidence you're not actually trying to stick a rational assessment of the facts. The fighting in Africa was sparked by the methodology of colonialism there, followed by quickly and indescriminately abandoning them, pulling up the entire governmental structures.

Who cares if they were INTENTIONALLY caused by the US, they were CAUSED by the US? Prior to our involvement, there wasn't this problem. We through the area into turmoil. Pinning that on Muslims is a denial of fact.

Meanwhile, you keep burning that strawman. I said deaths, not terrorism. Deaths from an embargo are not terrorism. Nor are death sentences carried out by the government of Iran. You mentioned a bunch of deaths most of which doesn't qualify as terrorism. So did I.

Pinning the Muslim on Muslim sucide bombing on the Muslims is a DENIAL OF THE FACT??????????????????????????

So the Americans are actually killing the Muslims?????

Wow, thank you for showing your true self to the world. you think the Islamic fundis who blow shit up are not primarily Islamic fundis, they are crazies created by America. (that they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

You talk about the socio-politcal climate crap in Africa, but the fact of the matter is, the largest genocide there was CARRIED out by ARAB-AFRICAN muslims, and funded by others ARAB muslims. (That they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

Afghanistan....do you think we should have let the Taliban remain in power? That Muslim state that Bin Laden called the one true Muslim nation on Earth? Where women were stoned to death for adultery? Where women needed the permission of their men to leave the house? Where women had to dress up in costumes that wouldnt even bare their eyes? The removal of this "govt" was undeniably a great moment, yet the Muslim fundis have killed many other innocent Muslims to get this lovely totalitarian regime back. (That they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

Bali.....what was the socio-political excuse for this one?

9/11...the US had installed a dictator in Chile, removing the democratically elected Allende. The US had done many wrongs in many places around the world. Yet how many full-scale terrorist attacks have been carried out by members of any of these groups on US soil. That the one group which carries out the act of this scaled would be the Muslim fundis......coincedence? No)

Madrid.....Spain was an ally in the war in Iraq, so non-Iraqi Muslims blow themselves up and take hundreds of innocents with them. Coincedence that the only thing connecting them to Iraq was Islam? No

London.....I can already see the socio-economic argument here......but the fact that the london bombings were commited by fundis of the same religion as those mentioned above = coincedence? No

The only religion that forces about half of their members to walk around in the sweltering heat in a black jump suit with ski-mask, while the men can walk around as they please? The fundis of WHICH religion so actively discriminate against their own kind (women), forbidding them the right to even drive or be educated?

The majority of the Islamic nations of the ME do not allow the practice of Hinduism or other idol-worshipping religions in their countries. Which other nations built on another religion, even while being Hindu or Christian, forbid the public practice of another religion, while expecting at the top of their lungs Islamic places of worship IN holy sites in other nations.

There are many many more things to add here, but I am tired, and you are someone who says a Muslim suicide bomber is not a Muslim suicide bomber, he is killing Muslims due to America....someone FAR beyond help.

not a muslim MY ASS....only one of the ALLAHBORG could claim the murder of 120 people in a shopping market by a Muslim Fundi is the fault of America????

Use the mountains of knowledge at their fingertips, here. You're killing your own argument, Leemba.

http://www.ifrc.org/who/

The Red Crescent is an arm of the Red Cross.

Hello Jacobia....I KNOW that the Red Crescent is an arm of the Red Cross....but it is, as far as I know, only active in Islamic regions, and when you click on Asia/Pacific or completely non-Islamic regions, it is the Red Cross that is active. Also, if there was no difference, it wouldn't be the case that I was only able to donate to the Red Crescent (in Supermarkets, at Banks, even the collection bins at Cafes and so on) in my time there, and it would not be necessary to create a seperate entity (clearly Islamic, which is what I suppose the crescent signifies, apart from the faith of those who are deemed worthy of its help). Of course, using the Internet, you can donate to whoever you wish to, but that is not the point. Why was there the need to create a Red Crescent arm JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE ISLAMIC REGIONS???? Was it not acceptable that the Red cross might help people of other faiths???

I had a friend (well, acquaintance) who was wanted to help in Africa, and as she was telling us, my friend said "You know, there's this place where they help all the Muslims...." This is what I am talking about here....when I donate, I donate to people in need....is it not enough that she is going to help Africans.....why is there even a place that just helps all the AFrican Muslims....are they the only Africans who deserve help?

Hello Jacobia....I KNOW that the Red Crescent is an arm of the Red Cross....but it is, as far as I know, only active in Islamic regions, and when you click on Asia/Pacific or completely non-Islamic regions, it is the Red Cross that is active. Also, if there was no difference, it wouldn't be the case that I was only able to donate to the Red Crescent (in Supermarkets, at Banks, even the collection bins at Cafes and so on) in my time there, and it would not be necessary to create a seperate entity (clearly Islamic, which is what I suppose the crescent signifies, apart from the faith of those who are deemed worthy of its help). Of course, using the Internet, you can donate to whoever you wish to, but that is not the point. Why was there the need to create a Red Crescent arm JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE ISLAMIC REGIONS???? Was it not acceptable that the Red cross might help people of other faiths???

I had a friend (well, acquaintance) who was wanted to help in Africa, and as she was telling us, my friend said "You know, there's this place where they help all the Muslims...." This is what I am talking about here....when I donate, I donate to people in need....is it not enough that she is going to help Africans.....why is there even a place that just helps all the AFrican Muslims....are they the only Africans who deserve help?

You don't get it. They don't refuse to help anyone. THEY, the Red Cross, decided to create it because THEY, the Red Cross, believed the Cross would be offensive because of its reference to Christianity, so THEY created an arm designed to cater to majority Muslim countries. Muslims had nothing to do with it. The Red Cross made that decision and when you bash the Red Crescent, you're bashing the Red Cross, not some Muslim charity.

Hello Jacobia....I KNOW that the Red Crescent is an arm of the Red Cross....but it is, as far as I know, only active in Islamic regions, and when you click on Asia/Pacific or completely non-Islamic regions, it is the Red Cross that is active. Also, if there was no difference, it wouldn't be the case that I was only able to donate to the Red Crescent (in Supermarkets, at Banks, even the collection bins at Cafes and so on) in my time there, and it would not be necessary to create a seperate entity (clearly Islamic, which is what I suppose the crescent signifies, apart from the faith of those who are deemed worthy of its help). Of course, using the Internet, you can donate to whoever you wish to, but that is not the point. Why was there the need to create a Red Crescent arm JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE ISLAMIC REGIONS???? Was it not acceptable that the Red cross might help people of other faiths??? The red cross was picked as a symbol not to demonstrate how Christian they were, but to demonstrate how neutral they were. It's an inversion of the Swiss flag and colors. Later on, some people realized that the cross is also a symbol of Christianity, and not just of Switzerland, and chose to create a Crescent for the Islamic countries, because the original meaning of the symbol could be misconstrued.

Pinning the Muslim on Muslim sucide bombing on the Muslims is a DENIAL OF THE FACT??????????????????????????

Pinning it on all Muslims while claiming that just as much murder and mayhem can be attributed to Christian nations, but isn't pinned on all Christians.


So the Americans are actually killing the Muslims?????

Wow, thank you for showing your true self to the world. you think the Islamic fundis who blow shit up are not primarily Islamic fundis, they are crazies created by America. (that they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

Not coincidence. You're inability to apply "subtle" nuances like political and economic pressures doesn't make a case for it being related to their religion. Sorry, Bubba, but your inabilities and ignorance do not an argument make.

And if it shows my true self to look at all of the causes behind a problem, then I'm quite happy I've shown my true self.


You talk about the socio-politcal climate crap in Africa, but the fact of the matter is, the largest genocide there was CARRIED out by ARAB-AFRICAN muslims, and funded by others ARAB muslims. (That they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

Again, no. You create a false dichotomy. Either it's coincidence or it's unrelated, according to you. According to me, the reason genocide is occurring in primarily black and Muslim areas of the world is because the Western world have been raping those areas for centuries and then basically destroyed their governmental structures and left a power vacuum. This isn't a possible cause. It's what started it. All it takes is a modicum of knowledge of history.


Afghanistan....do you think we should have let the Taliban remain in power? That Muslim state that Bin Laden called the one true Muslim nation on Earth? Where women were stoned to death for adultery? Where women needed the permission of their men to leave the house? Where women had to dress up in costumes that wouldnt even bare their eyes? The removal of this "govt" was undeniably a great moment, yet the Muslim fundis have killed many other innocent Muslims to get this lovely totalitarian regime back. (That they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

We PUT them in power. Afghanistan wasn't a theocracy until we helped it become one. Now you want to use that as to excuse the deaths due to our invasion? How wildly displaced from reality, that is.


Bali.....what was the socio-political excuse for this one?

Um, you realize that you keep citing the same organization, right? Al Qaeda. Do you realize what percentage of Muslims ARE NOT part of Al Qaeda?


9/11...the US had installed a dictator in Chile, removing the democratically elected Allende. The US had done many wrongs in many places around the world. Yet how many full-scale terrorist attacks have been carried out by members of any of these groups on US soil. That the one group which carries out the act of this scaled would be the Muslim fundis......coincedence? No)

How is this an argument for you? Because some of the people we mistreated didn't use terrorism against us, we don't bear responsibility on some level for those that do? What color is the sky in your world and what magical barrier prevents logic from penetrating?


Madrid.....Spain was an ally in the war in Iraq, so non-Iraqi Muslims blow themselves up and take hundreds of innocents with them. Coincedence that the only thing connecting them to Iraq was Islam? No

Again, not coincidence. By your telling, then the civil strife in the US for 100 years was caused by black people. I mean, all that linked them was black people.


London.....I can already see the socio-economic argument here......but the fact that the london bombings were commited by fundis of the same religion as those mentioned above = coincedence? No

Again, if you're going to use this kind of illogic, then blacks caused the strife in the US. Clearly the people who oppressed them for 100's of year had nothing to do with it.


The only religion that forces about half of their members to walk around in the sweltering heat in a black jump suit with ski-mask, while the men can walk around as they please? The fundis of WHICH religion so actively discriminate against their own kind (women), forbidding them the right to even drive or be educated?

The majority of the Islamic nations of the ME do not allow the practice of Hinduism or other idol-worshipping religions in their countries. Which other nations built on another religion, even while being Hindu or Christian, forbid the public practice of another religion, while expecting at the top of their lungs Islamic places of worship IN holy sites in other nations.

There are many many more things to add here, but I am tired, and you are someone who says a Muslim suicide bomber is not a Muslim suicide bomber, he is killing Muslims due to America....someone FAR beyond help.

not a muslim MY ASS....only one of the ALLAHBORG could claim the murder of 120 people in a shopping market by a Muslim Fundi is the fault of America????

Seriously, you've demonstrated your amazing ignorance on the subject. I'm tempted not to reply, because I'm not sure I can do more damage to your argument than your own words.

You've adequately demonstrated that there is a force called Muslim fundamentalism that is dangerous. What does that have to do with Muslims in general?

The red cross was picked as a symbol not to demonstrate how Christian they were, but to demonstrate how neutral they were. It's an inversion of the Swiss flag and colors. Later on, some people realized that the cross is also a symbol of Christianity, and not just of Switzerland, and chose to create a Crescent for the Islamic countries, because the original meaning of the symbol could be misconstrued.

More importantly, it was a bunch of non-Muslims who made that decision, but somehow it's the fault of Muslims according to the wildly ignorant.

Pinning the Muslim on Muslim sucide bombing on the Muslims is a DENIAL OF THE FACT??????????????????????????

So the Americans are actually killing the Muslims?????

Wow, thank you for showing your true self to the world. you think the Islamic fundis who blow shit up are not primarily Islamic fundis, they are crazies created by America. (that they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

You talk about the socio-politcal climate crap in Africa, but the fact of the matter is, the largest genocide there was CARRIED out by ARAB-AFRICAN muslims, and funded by others ARAB muslims. (That they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

Afghanistan....do you think we should have let the Taliban remain in power? That Muslim state that Bin Laden called the one true Muslim nation on Earth? Where women were stoned to death for adultery? Where women needed the permission of their men to leave the house? Where women had to dress up in costumes that wouldnt even bare their eyes? The removal of this "govt" was undeniably a great moment, yet the Muslim fundis have killed many other innocent Muslims to get this lovely totalitarian regime back. (That they are the same religion as the people below = coincedence? No)

Hmmm? I wonder who put the Taliban in power in the place?

Bali.....what was the socio-political excuse for this one?

A week after the blasts Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera put to air an audio-cassette purportedly carrying a recorded voice message from Osama Bin Laden saying that the Bali bombings were in direct retaliation for support of the United States' war on terror and Australia's role in the liberation of East Timor. TL;DR, JI (... oh wow, extremists) targeted Bali as a tourist spot because of the high influx of foreign tourists.

9/11...the US had installed a dictator in Chile, removing the democratically elected Allende. The US had done many wrongs in many places around the world. Yet how many full-scale terrorist attacks have been carried out by members of any of these groups on US soil. That the one group which carries out the act of this scaled would be the Muslim fundis......coincedence? No)

La Sendero Luminoso,... ring any bells?

Madrid.....Spain was an ally in the war in Iraq, so non-Iraqi Muslims blow themselves up and take hundreds of innocents with them. Coincedence that the only thing connecting them to Iraq was Islam? No

Alleged, Islamists activity, no final verdict, Spain bombing would cause negativity, why,... because Spain's involvement in Iraq is EXTREMELY unpopular.

London.....I can already see the socio-economic argument here......but the fact that the london bombings were commited by fundis of the same religion as those mentioned above = coincedence? No

The only religion that forces about half of their members to walk around in the sweltering heat in a black jump suit with ski-mask, while the men can walk around as they please? The fundis of WHICH religion so actively discriminate against their own kind (women), forbidding them the right to even drive or be educated?

So you're just gonna generalize everything do you, as you will, but I can see that history will say that you're wrong.

The majority of the Islamic nations of the ME do not allow the practice of Hinduism or other idol-worshipping religions in their countries. Which other nations built on another religion, even while being Hindu or Christian, forbid the public practice of another religion, while expecting at the top of their lungs Islamic places of worship IN holy sites in other nations.

Islam are iconoclasts, idols and what not are against their tenets. In holy sites in other nations? Who filled your head with such nonsense?

There are many many more things to add here, but I am tired, and you are someone who says a Muslim suicide bomber is not a Muslim suicide bomber, he is killing Muslims due to America....someone FAR beyond help.

not a muslim MY ASS....only one of the ALLAHBORG could claim the murder of 120 people in a shopping market by a Muslim Fundi is the fault of America????

Play with fire and got burned? How's about stomping on an ant hill, do the ant doesn't retaliate? How about throwing rocks at a hornet's nest. Oh sure, it took one person to do those things, but look at what that did to the whole picnic attendees?

Well, you don't have to be the a borg drone to see the cause and effect of laissez-faire capitalism and neo-imperialism.

Widen your perspectives son, those horseblinds doesn't suit any person.

I'm sorry, but I'm not replying to that until you show that you care enough about this argument to read what you wrote and make it legible. I read two sentences and wanted to poke my eyes out. Take a breath and write in sentences. Act like you're actually making an argument and not just ranting at the sky.

Next, leave out the logical fallacies. It doesn't help your argument to call me a "bigot sympathizer" while you call Muslims "ALLAHBORG". All it does is give everyone reason to laugh at you. Let me know when you're ready. Barely legible rants disguising their bigotry behind more bigotry isn't helping anyone. Again, take a breath, and make your point. Have a little faith that you can actually make that point without the fallacies.

My issue is this; the cartoon is just not that funny. In life you need to pick your battles, and a badly drawn guy with a bomb with a hat is not worth losing your life over.

Cartoons do not need to be funny. They often make a political point.
And oh boy, did the first printing prove the point -- or rather, the reaction to its first printing has.

Cartoons do not need to be funny. They often make a political point.
And oh boy, did the first printing prove the point -- or rather, the reaction to its first printing has.

Prove? It showed that offensive cartoons actually cause offense. Wow. Next up, they'll prove that wet sidewalks are wet. I can't wait. Should be an interesting showdown between sidewalks and scientists.

Prove? It showed that offensive cartoons actually cause offense. Wow.

WHY is implying that some terrorists use Mohammed as an excuse to commit their crimes offensive ? Just because some flavours of Islam think it is bad to depict Mohammed ?

Hmmm? I wonder who put the Taliban in power in the place?

Themselves?

They came to power in 1996, long after we stopped supporting the mujahideen.

It doesn't imply that "some terrorists" do so. It supports a stereotype that those that follow Muhammed are terrorists.

Only to those who want to see that in it. Assuming we are talking about the turban.

In addition, as you note, it depicts Muhammed, but, for my money, that's hardly the point.

It is however for the protesting moslims.

Prove? It showed that offensive cartoons actually cause offense. Wow. Next up, they'll prove that wet sidewalks are wet. I can't wait. Should be an interesting showdown between sidewalks and scientists.
As a scientist, that remark seems to me purely intended to offend. Can I request a retraction?

Not according to most of the world. We continued to support their rise to power politically and financially and were chastised for both.

I stand corrected.

WHY is implying that some terrorists use Mohammed as an excuse to commit their crimes offensive ? Just because some flavours of Islam think it is bad to depict Mohammed ?

It doesn't imply that "some terrorists" do so. It supports a stereotype that those that follow Muhammed are terrorists. In addition, as you note, it depicts Muhammed, but, for my money, that's hardly the point.

Themselves?

They came to power in 1996, long after we stopped supporting the mujahideen.

Not according to most of the world. We continued to support their rise to power politically and financially and were chastised for both.

Only to those who want to see that in it. Assuming we are talking about the turban.

Only to those? Pardon me? What part of it shows that it's a specific reference and not just an offense aimed at all Muslims?

Don't say the bomb, because I could just as easily say that a cartoon depicting a black-skinned man with big white teeth eating watermelon and chicken is only meant to be offensive to people with black skin, big white teeth and who eat watermelon and chicken, completely ignoring that fact that it endorses a stereotype.

Also, how does it happen to be that the people who happened to fight against the SOVIET invasion of the country just coincidentally HAPPENED to be Islamic FUNDIS. Another coincedence? The fault of the Western Civilisation that the only resistence fighters the country could come up with were crazy freaks of the religous mujahideen, who would go on to become members of the Taliban.

If the US were invaded, it would not afterward become a freak Christian fundi country.

Also, how does it happen to be that the people who happened to fight against the SOVIET invasion of the country just coincidentally HAPPENED to be Islamic FUNDIS. Another coincedence? The fault of the Western Civilisation that the only resistence fighters the country could come up with were crazy freaks of the religous mujahideen, who would go on to become members of the Taliban.

If the US were invaded, it would not afterward become a freak Christian fundi country.

Since you managed to leave out the ad hominems and flames and write relatively well, I'll give you a reply.

Have you heard of McCarthyism? Fundamentalism rose gravely as a result of the Soviet threat. Open a book. You'll get all the fundamentalism you need. How do you think "Under God" got in the pledge. Many, many people in this country were destroyed for being Atheists or Communists. We were a step away from becoming a completely fundamentalist country and we weren't even a little close to invasion. Your point is defeated by history.

(Keep in mind, the link between Christian groups and the spread of aids is at least as rational as the link between Islam and Darfur. Hell, the link between Belgium and Darfur is MUCH more rations.)
You seem to have confused Darfur with Rwanda. Belgium has never, in any period of history, gone anywhere near Darfur.
According to me, the reason genocide is occurring in primarily black and Muslim areas of the world is because the Western world have been raping those areas for centuries and then basically destroyed their governmental structures and left a power vacuum. This isn't a possible cause. It's what started it. All it takes is a modicum of knowledge of history.
No, horrific violence was endemic in Africa long before the evil white man showed up; you seem to have fallen for the rosy scenario of the "noble primitives" who lived in idyllic peace. In general, see "War Before Civilization" by Keegan, marshalling more evidence than I would have thought readily available on warfare in pre-literate societies, concluding as a general rule of thumb that while primitive societies were only at war about 10% of the time, these wars were almost always quite frankly genocidal: echoing the title of Mendenhall's "The Tenth Generation" studying the periodic outbreaks of genocidal war in the ancient Near East; and Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" has a good chapter on early war. In certain places the frequency of war was higher than the usual "10% of the time" (Africa is not the only such; Central Asia was also hyper-violent): see "Wars Without End" (the author's name escapes me at the moment), reconstructing the history of medieval Chad and Centrafrique from the griots' oral traditions. Rwanda (natch!) has a rare example of a very early genocide making it into the records: Herodotus mentions that at the headwaters of the Nile, the "Cranes", described as a tall people with a habit of standing on one foot, were at war with the "Pygmies", described as only half the normal human height; now Herodotus is not a great source, but standing on one foot is in fact a habit of the tall Nilotic peoples like the Tutsi, and Rwanda used to have a lot of Pygmies-- but now they are only a small fraction of 1% of the population, indicating a very thorough-going genocide.
Because some of the people we mistreated didn't use terrorism against us, we don't bear responsibility on some level for those that do?
Damned straight! The responsibility for horrific acts belongs entirely to the horrific actor. I categorically refuse to accept the "See what you made me do!" excuse, and find it quite dismaying that you do.
What color is the sky in your world and what magical barrier prevents logic from penetrating?
It's blue here. What color is it on your planet?
You've adequately demonstrated that there is a force called Muslim fundamentalism that is dangerous. What does that have to do with Muslims in general?
The Muslims who are willing to commit murder over cartoons are a minority, to be sure, but not a terribly rare one: no rarer than, say, Ron Paul voters in the United States.

In the United States, people like Eric Rudolph (bombed abortion clinics, gay bars, and the Olympics) are vanishingly rare, less than one in million; those who express sympathy with such acts, and would send death threats to the creator of a "Piss Christ" or "Ecce Homo" although they haven't carried them out, are obviously more common but still a small fraction of 1%. You and Gravlen seem to be under the impression that terrorist supporters in Muslim countries are of similar rarity, but it just is not so.

You seem to have confused Darfur with Rwanda. Belgium has never, in any period of history, gone anywhere near Darfur.

No, horrific violence was endemic in Africa long before the evil white man showed up; you seem to have fallen for the rosy scenario of the "noble primitives" who lived in idyllic peace. In general, see "War Before Civilization" by Keegan, marshalling more evidence than I would have thought readily available on warfare in pre-literate societies, concluding as a general rule of thumb that while primitive societies were only at war about 10% of the time, these wars were almost always quite frankly genocidal: echoing the title of Mendenhall's "The Tenth Generation" studying the periodic outbreaks of genocidal war in the ancient Near East; and Jared Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" has a good chapter on early war. In certain places the frequency of war was higher than the usual "10% of the time" (Africa is not the only such; Central Asia was also hyper-violent): see "Wars Without End" (the author's name escapes me at the moment), reconstructing the history of medieval Chad and Centrafrique from the griots' oral traditions. Rwanda (natch!) has a rare example of a very early genocide making it into the records: Herodotus mentions that at the headwaters of the Nile, the "Cranes", described as a tall people with a habit of standing on one foot, were at war with the "Pygmies", described as only half the normal human height; now Herodotus is not a great source, but standing on one foot is in fact a habit of the tall Nilotic peoples like the Tutsi, and Rwanda used to have a lot of Pygmies-- but now they are only a small fraction of 1% of the population, indicating a very thorough-going genocide.

Damned straight! The responsibility for horrific acts belongs entirely to the horrific actor. I categorically refuse to accept the "See what you made me do!" excuse, and find it quite dismaying that you do.

It's blue here. What color is it on your planet?

The Muslims who are willing to commit murder over cartoons are a minority, to be sure, but not a terribly rare one: no rarer than, say, Ron Paul voters in the United States.

In the United States, people like Eric Rudolph (bombed abortion clinics, gay bars, and the Olympics) are vanishingly rare, less than one in million; those who express sympathy with such acts, and would send death threats to the creator of a "Piss Christ" or "Ecce Homo" although they haven't carried them out, are obviously more common but still a small fraction of 1%. You and Gravlen seem to be under the impression that terrorist supporters in Muslim countries are of similar rarity, but it just is not so.

You guys make this so easy. This post is so perfect, let's just let it sit. I think it adequately demonstrates where you're coming from.

You guys make this so easy. This post is so perfect, let's just let it sit. I think it adequately demonstrates where you're coming from.
Yes indeed. You are coming from "everything must be the fault of the evil West". I say what people do is their own fault.

Yes indeed. You are coming from "everything must be the fault of the evil West". I say what people do is their own fault.

Nope. I'm not denying that those involved have responsibility. Never have. Never will. I also am not willing to remove the responsibility of those who played a part in creating these problems. Muslims aren't naturally flawed causing this violence. Nor are Africans. There are a plethora of factors.

To help you understand, let's talk about the US. A gang member shoots someone's child because that person owed them money. That gang member should go to jail for life. I'm not excusing his actions.

However, I'm not going to pretend that it's some flaw in the gang member, rather than economic, social and political pressures that make gangs so successful in our inner cities.

Don't get angry at me because my understanding of problems is more complicated than "John kills Jim so I kill John." Blaming the evil Muslims doesn't get us any closer to solving the problem. Unfortunately, it seems to be a very common disorder in the US that we are afraid to analyze the causation that got us here.

Muslims aren't naturally flawed causing this violence. Nor are Africans. There are a plethora of factors.
The culture is a major factor. No, it is not anything genetic (if that is what you meant by "natural") to Muslims (who are from many ethnicities), or to Africans (who are more genetically diverse than the rest of the world combined). But there is something intrinsic to ISLAM which gives rise to a higher level of support for violence; and the culture of sub-Saharan Africa was also marred by the high rate of warfare: to be sure, wars in medieval Europe were every bit as horrific as wars in medieval Africa, or medieval China, or medieval anywhere; but Africa had a high frequency of warfare (your claim that it only started because of colonialism, and that anybody knowledgeable about the history would know that, is directly opposite the truth), which was the heaviest lead weight around their necks impeding their development (and making them easy prey for the colonialists). The post-colonial wars are really a return to the status quo ante.
However, I'm not going to pretend that it's some flaw in the gang member, rather than economic, social and political pressures that make gangs so successful in our inner cities.
You come across as someone who would accuse me of being a bigot for even pointing out that gangs ARE "successful in our inner cities": how dare you say such a thing, when the vast majority of people in our inner cities are hardworking and honest, etc.

I do not doubt that if the people being opressed by the various regimes in the middle east were of a different religious presuation you'd see them doing just the same as they're doing now.
I do.

The Muslims who are willing to commit murder over cartoons are a minority, to be sure, but not a terribly rare one: no rarer than, say, Ron Paul voters in the United States.
You're claiming that they only exist online? :eek:

;)

In the United States, people like Eric Rudolph (bombed abortion clinics, gay bars, and the Olympics) are vanishingly rare, less than one in million; those who express sympathy with such acts, and would send death threats to the creator of a "Piss Christ" or "Ecce Homo" although they haven't carried them out, are obviously more common but still a small fraction of 1%. You and Gravlen seem to be under the impression that terrorist supporters in Muslim countries are of similar rarity, but it just is not so.
*Sigh*

Read this thread again. Please.

I'm not saying that there no or even few terrorist supporters in muslim countries. I'm saying that it's a minority.

I'm also saying that it's not only because they're muslims!

I see no evidence that American muslims, for example, are more likely to commit violent acts of threaten others with death than other Americans are. On the contrary, Christians in America seems to be more vocal and willing than muslims when it comes to providing threats.

Does that mean that I think all Christians are evil or potentially violent? No.
Does it mean that I think that the current geopolitical situations in majority muslim countries are breeding grounds for extremism, and especially so the middle east since it's in such a situation that acts of violence are rather common while other liberties are curtailed and controlled? Yes.

I do not doubt that if the people being opressed by the various regimes in the middle east were of a different religious presuation you'd see them doing just the same as they're doing now.

I do.
So I see...
The culture is a major factor. ... But there is something intrinsic to ISLAM which gives rise to a higher level of support for violence;

...but I have yet to see anything except circumstantial evidence to back up that hypothesis.

But there is something intrinsic to ISLAM which gives rise to a higher level of support for violence; and the culture of sub-Saharan Africa was also marred by the high rate of warfare: to be sure, wars in medieval Europe were every bit as horrific as wars in medieval Africa, or medieval China, or medieval anywhere; but Africa had a high frequency of warfare...

The justification for violence to smite one's enemies can be found in the bible just as easily as it can be found in the koran. The problem is not with islam itself; rather, the problem stems from the union of poverty and religious fundamentalism. If you want to get rid of terrorists, start campaigning to lift the rest of the world out of poverty and work to educate the population. Once you teach people how to think and provide a society where they don't have to constantly struggle for survival, religion and its extremist tendencies will no longer have any sway.

As a scientist, that remark seems to me purely intended to offend. Can I request a retraction?
...
Interesting... okay, carry on.

The justification for violence to smite one's enemies can be found in the bible just as easily as it can be found in the koran. The problem is not with islam itself; rather, the problem stems from the union of poverty and religious fundamentalism. If you want to get rid of terrorists, start campaigning to lift the rest of the world out of poverty and work to educate the population. Once you teach people how to think and provide a society where they don't have to constantly struggle for survival, religion and its extremist tendencies will no longer have any sway.

Quoted for the truth. Of course people like Tmutarakhan won't bother to address those socioeconomic roots of the problem. They usually prefer mutually whacking off to more examples of "3b1l m05l3mz rampant" and dreaming for the conversion or extermination of the Islamic faithful.

Also, Jacobia, I assumed, from your holier-than-thou attitude, that you could at the very least ecode strings of leeters into words, could put these words together and understand that they belong to a sentence. by pointing out that the native americans do not blow up innocent residents of america, or that the chileans did not blow up innocent americans, i DO NOT justify american wrongdoings but rather draw attention to the fact that they each approach their injustices diffferently than your ALLAHBORG DO. They do not murder thousands of innocent americans or innocent tourists in bali as a response to every wrong that western cvilisation has apparently been resposible for......such as the election of hamas or the installation of the ayatollah or the taliban

Wow...this thread turned into a muslim hate fest really fast since I last looked at it.

I do.

Oh my.


Read the Bible lately? I think you'll find ample things in there that are just as bad as the bad things in the Koran.

also, with regards to the red cross...that sounds like the ALLAHBORG to me....the cartoons cause so much offense, think of the horrors a RED CROSS would inflict on the MUSLIM PSYCHE!!!! won't somebody please think of the MULSIMS....they do get offended so.....let alone the fact that the red cross has no diffuculties operating in India, a HINDU....NOT christain nation.....but charities with a poosibly chiristian symbol that help people around the world indiscriminately COULD offend the muslims....and we all know how that can end....those poor poor muslims....havent they suffered enough at the hands of Western society, now the charities have to offend them too!!!!!!!!!!!!:(

The poor Muslims! the horrors of the RED CROSS!!!

Also, Jacobia, I assumed, from your holier-than-thou attitude, that you could at the very least ecode strings of leeters into words, could put these words together and understand that they belong to a sentence. by pointing out that the native americans do not blow up innocent residents of america, or that the chileans did not blow up innocent americans, i DO NOT justify american wrongdoings but rather draw attention to the fact that they each approach their injustices diffferently than your ALLAHBORG DO. They do not murder thousands of innocent americans or innocent tourists in bali as a response to every wrong that western cvilisation has apparently been resposible for......such as the election of hamas or the installation of the ayatollah or the taliban

You clearly have a shift key. The reason we use that key is to make paragraphs easier to use. Sentence begin with capital letters. I'm not saying this to you because I want to ignore your points, but because you are making ME put in a lot of effort to read your points because you're too lazy to capitalize and put a little effort into what you write. When you care about what you write, so will I. Deal?

For the record, I'd love to discuss this with you, but I'm done trying to wade through posts you refuse to put a little effort into. I'm also done with the personal attacks. If you feel your argument can't stand without personal attacks on me, then you should just give up now. Most people here are intelligent enough to recognize them for what they are dismiss your posts.

Wow...this thread turned into a muslim hate fest really fast since I last looked at it.

It always does. That was my precise point when I entered the thread. All these events do is justify the anti-Muslim hatred around the world AND justify and amplify the anti-Western hatred among Muslims. We play into the hands of those recruiting when we set out to provoke.

MLK was a great man for one very important reason. He realized that someone somewhere had to make the first step and say enough. Otherwise, both sides get justified by a few actions by a few people on the other side and violence becomes the only solution.

Interesting... okay, carry on.

I assumed you were goofing around.

Wow...this thread turned into a muslim hate fest really fast since I last looked at it.

Right now Muslim Hating is the new guilt-free fad. You have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Satanists all holding hands and singing how all Muslims are evil hivemind terrorists that need to be exterminated.

Also, Jacobia, I assumed, from your holier-than-thou attitude, that you could at the very least ecode strings of leeters into words, could put these words together and understand that they belong to a sentence. by pointing out that the native americans do not blow up innocent residents of america, or that the chileans did not blow up innocent americans, i DO NOT justify american wrongdoings but rather draw attention to the fact that they each approach their injustices diffferently than your ALLAHBORG DO. They do not murder thousands of innocent americans or innocent tourists in bali as a response to every wrong that western cvilisation has apparently been resposible for......such as the election of hamas or the installation of the ayatollah or the taliban

Jacobia has problems with words...?:rolleyes:

Continuing on, there are numerous other terrorist organizations that aren't muslim. FARC, Rote Armee Fraktion (now disbanded), the KKK, MeCha, Neo-nazis, Basque Separatists, Lord's Resistance Army, to name just a few. LRA and FARC especially have done far more than Islamic extremists have. Your attempt to give Muslims a monopoly on violence and destruction is ridiculous.

Right now Muslim Hating is the new guilt-free fad. You have Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Satanists all holding hands and singing how all Muslims are evil hivemind terrorists that need to be exterminated.

Earlier in this thread I quoted McCarthy with the statements changed to fit Muslims. No one even noticed. Nothing changes. Human being love to hate. And, of course, when those dirty Muslims deserve it, it's not terrorism. It's justice.

It always does. That was my precise point when I entered the thread. All these events do is justify the anti-Muslim hatred around the world AND justify and amplify the anti-Western hatred among Muslims. We play into the hands of those recruiting when we set out to provoke.

MLK was a great man for one very important reason. He realized that someone somewhere had to make the first step and say enough. Otherwise, both sides get justified by a few actions by a few people on the other side and violence becomes the only solution.

There is nothing wrong with newspapers reprinting those cartoons. We in the west cannot sacrifice the principles that we have tried to live by for centuries simply because the exercise of some of our liberties piss other people off. Fundamentalist christians burned copies of Harry Potter, but we didn't ban the sale of Harry Potter in the US. Fundamentalist christians honestly believe that abortion is murder, but we don't ban abortions (yet). There will be no end to religious extremism when you simply try not to ruffle feathers and hope that problems will go away.

There was an assassination attempt on a man's life because of an illustration. That is not the kind of logic that is negotiated with. You can't hope that you can hold hands with extremists and that they will stop with their crazy demands once you meet enough of them. The underlying root causes of religious extremism (insufficient education and poverty) need to be addressed before peace can be reached. Placating nutcases won't suffice.

Jacobia has problems with words...?:rolleyes:

Continuing on, there are numerous other terrorist organizations that aren't muslim. FARC, Rote Armee Fraktion (now disbanded), the KKK, MeCha, Neo-nazis, Basque Separatists, Lord's Resistance Army, to name just a few. LRA and FARC especially have done far more than Islamic extremists have. Your attempt to give Muslims a monopoly on violence and destruction is ridiculous.

And then theres the Irish...;)

And then theres the Irish...;)

It's not terrorism when they're white. It's freedom-fighting.

It's not terrorism when they're white. It's freedom-fighting.

:D:rolleyes:

It's not terrorism when they're white. It's freedom-fighting.


Unless your OceanDrive2, then its freedom fighting when your killing the white man, especially if its the Jew.

It's not terrorism when they're white. It's freedom-fighting.

or White Collar:p

or White Collar:p

If you're collar is white enough, you cannot do any wrong. Unless of course someone with a whiter collar than you is in the crosshairs and then you're going down.

If you're collar is white enough, you cannot do any wrong. Unless of course someone with a whiter collar than you is in the crosshairs and then you're going down.

Or if oil is somehow involved. Then everyone's fucked

Or if oil is somehow involved. Then everyone's fucked

You mean "fudked".

You mean "fudked".

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D you're right.

I assumed you were goofing around.
Half and half. I was being deliberately ironic, of course, but I was also building up to a point. Being offensive (intentional or otherwise) can get peoples' attention focused on the area of disagreement, which can be a useful tool in dialogue if handled with care, whereas being polite and inoffensive can often result in someone going ignored.

If we were on good terms with the Islamic states right now, I would be very much on the side of the Danish newspapers on this one. Perhaps I'm being hypocritical saying as much, even. But even where I feel the point the publishing of the cartoons has value, I must acknowledge that this value is negated by the current climate of hostility that exists towards Muslims. When said to friends, it's an expression of genuine concern; when said towards rivals or enemies, it can only ever be interpreted as an assertion of superiority.

The cartoons do have a valid point to make, even in (and in part thanks to) their offensive nature. It's just that making it now is contextually inappropriate.

Half and half. I was being deliberately ironic, of course, but I was also building up to a point. Being offensive (intentional or otherwise) can get peoples' attention focused on the area of disagreement, which can be a useful tool in dialogue if handled with care, whereas being polite and inoffensive can often result in someone going ignored.

If we were on good terms with the Islamic states right now, I would be very much on the side of the Danish newspapers on this one. Perhaps I'm being hypocritical saying as much, even. But even where I feel the point the publishing of the cartoons has value, I must acknowledge that this value is negated by the current climate of hostility that exists towards Muslims. When said to friends, it's an expression of genuine concern; when said towards rivals or enemies, it can only ever be interpreted as an assertion of superiority.

The cartoons do have a valid point to make, even in (and in part thanks to) their offensive nature. It's just that making it now is contextually inappropriate.

I can (and do) agree with that. It seems like they're going, we CAN do this so that's why we will. They also can take pictures up the skirts of female celebs, but they obviously shouldn't. I'm, frankly, fairly tired of the press being irresponsible and then claiming that pointing out their irresponsiblity means I don't respect freedom of the press.

Does that mean that I think all Christians are evil or potentially violent?

Evil no, but all Christians are potentially violent. This has nothing to do with their Christianity however, it's because they are human and all humans are potentially violent.

so you actually support the crap about Islmaists not wanting other religions that are against some belief of theirs to be PRACTICED in their nation. Because it is agains their Well, so is homosexuality, so they have the right to forbid that. Go back to your fucking Taliban Caliphate paradise. Just because it is against their religion doesnt mean they have the right to ban it in their country. It is against Christianity or Hinduism to believe in Allah, and not Jesus, Krishna, etc....Yet the fucking ALLAHBORG expect to build all the fucking ALLAHBORG recruitement centers (Mosques) they want in Christian or Hindu nations. Fucking bigot sympathiser.

Actually the ones who were ban those kinds of practices are in violation of charter Muhammad made himself in the city of Medina. Read about the Medina Charter sometime. You're the one who is misinformed. As your claim of my bigotry is pale when compared to yours.

Also, if there is NO ALLAHBORG, then why when there is an injustice in Chechnya, do the Al-Qaeda mention the plight of their brothers in Chechnya. If they were unrelated except in name only, why does the BORG itself refer to fellow Muslims, and not those unrelated people in Russia, whose terrorism has nothing to do with the terrorism we carry out. Why do they talk about ISLAMIC sceince, when the people might be Arab or Persian, even though these are completely different peoples. You say they are all seperate and teh religion is not the binding factor, yet the BORG themselves ALWAYS speak of their collective, referring to them as Islamic colleagues, and not Persian sceince vs. Arab sceince, or Muslim fight with Russia, NOT unrelated Checnyans fight with Russians.


Of course, because their belief of that Islam transcends nations. Simple, no?

I cant believe you actually try to justify these actions, such as the Bali bombings, and don't even deny that these were simply the act of Muslim terrorists part of the larger Borg collective. Widen my mind???? Accepting the fact That some fucking ALLAHBORG would want to murder innocent tourists in Bali is for you widening the mind???? Why don't you and your fellow ALLAHBORG extremists hold a suicide bombing party to oppose the US presence in Iraq, but this time instead of killing foreign tourists in retaliation, just fucking kill each other.....every last suicide bomber...leaving just the Muslims who WOULDNT kill innocents in response to actions commited by people COMPLETELY unrelated to those who hurt them. Leaving just those Iraqis who are sick of the justifications for the suicide bombings that kill innocent Iraqis (just as good justification as yours for the Bali bombings...) It is people like you that makes life miserable for these people who just want thier land reconstructed, and live in fucking peace from terrorists who claim to fight in their name, yet kill them or complete strangers in THEIR name.

And, of course, this kind of argument isn't what the terrorists used to justify their own actions? Same difference, with the same amount of bile. Then again, I've been called worst by people whose arguments I have seemingly defended. So, in a way, I guess I'm glad the world doesn't revolve around some simple argumentative debate.

Read the Bible lately? I think you'll find ample things in there that are just as bad as the bad things in the Koran.
The problem is endemic to ALL the Abrahamic religions. Christians of course are much more of a threat to my safety and livelihood in my day-to-day life, since they are more numerous around here. However, Christianity has been mellowed by being stripped of the totalitarian political power it once wielded: after a long struggle costing many lives.
If you think I am more favorably inclined to the Christian religion than to the Muslim, think again. I would rather see both of them disappear.

The problem is endemic to ALL the Abrahamic religions. Christians of course are much more of a threat to my safety and livelihood in my day-to-day life, since they are more numerous around here. However, Christianity has been mellowed by being stripped of the totalitarian political power it once wielded: after a long struggle costing many lives.
If you think I am more favorably inclined to the Christian religion than to the Muslim, think again. I would rather see both of them disappear.

Wisely said....I too would like to see Religion have zero say in the matter of rights and policy....complete and utter seperation of church (or moque) and state. I think you have pointed out the problem better than anyone else could have....what vandal unknown said....that it is basically okay for the ptracitse of Hinduism to be forbidden in a Muslim nation....because it is against its religion.....is absolutely ridiculous and actually defends the official discrimination of 'offending' religion or peoples or their practices. Now, Christianity is just as averse to homosexuality for instance....but as you very cleary said.....in nations that are seen as primarily Christian nations....the Christians do not have the power to forbid homosexuality (or the practise of religions that offend them) yet in Islamic nations....the practise of homosexuality can result in imprisonment or even Death!!!! Now, this really is outrageous!!!!!

as for Waztakans comparing the US military defense of its country and the Afghani defense of its land from the USSR, which one cannot do...there is ONE valid point....why is it that a revolutionary force or a rebellion against foreign invaders (not from the official military....the revolutionaries) had to be of such strong religous nature? The French anti-Nazi' revolutionaries were not of any strong Chritstian beliefs, why is it that those who faught for Afghani freedom (and I agree....AFghanistan was a free and peaceful land before the Soviets, I am not arguing this one bit....my question does not deny this) were the Mujahideen, and not simply some people who faught for Afghanistan and its people, why did it have to be religous extremists????

The guy is a former state minister and is a serving representative for the state assembly.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=546485
Cartoon controversy: 51 crores not enough? Qureshi asks people to fix reward amount

Meerut, Feb 19 (PTI) Mohammad Yaqoob Qureshi, who created a furore in 2006 by announcing a reward of Rs 51 crore to anyone who beheads a Danish cartoonist for drawing caricatures of Prophet Mohammed, is in the news again.

This time, however, he has asked the people of this city to fix the quantum of the bounty for the "avenger" after some Danish newspapers reprinted last week the controversial cartoon that depicted the Prophet wearing a turban which resembled a bomb.

The former SP minister, who defected to BSP and is now an MLA from Meerut City, today said he will announce the reward after people of the city fix the amount.

"This time the people of Meerut should decide what should be the amount of the reward," he said.

Qureshi also said "the Centre should demand an apology from Denmark and the Uttar Pradesh assembly should condemn the reprint of the controversial cartoon".

Evil no, but all Christians are potentially violent. This has nothing to do with their Christianity however, it's because they are human and all humans are potentially violent.

Yes! Exactly!

*Gives you a cookie* :fluffle:

Bali.....what was the socio-political excuse for this one?


Adultery, drugs, etc.
Also they are angry at the "Western-lover" government.
And they are against Hindus (Balis are Hindus)
Also there are some act that is not compatible with our (Muslim-Western Indonesian) laws... 'adat', we say it...

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, been away for a bit.
(Bottle, I admit you kind of sold me with the VAGINA thing. I think this is much more grievious, but I'll admit it would necessarily be bigotry. However, I maintain that MANY people in this thread are obviously bigots, which is why this turned into a criticism of Islam for so many of them, rather than a discussion about the publishing of the cartoons, like Agenda, myself and Bottle are talking about.)
Fair enough.

For me, this thread is a great example of why I'm not necessarily on the same "side" as the people who agree with me. The reasons behind our conclusions are critical.

I believe it's not bigotry to have deliberately printed offensive material. I've supported doing so, but for specifically non-bigoted reasons, and thus I feel obligated to judge others by an equal standard. What's good for the Bottle is good for the gander and whatnot.

However, I also think that a lot of people support the publishing of the cartoons in question for very different reasons. A lot of people who are bigots like seeing that sort of material published because they like the idea of pissing off Muslims.

I hadn't been planning on coming back to this thread as it was beginning to get boring, but then I saw a story via Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) and the parallels struck me:

A high school senior and an elementary school student were attacked in the Mediterranean town of Mersin with strong acid spray. In two separate incidents within the same hour both girls were approached from behind by a group of young men who commented on the length of their skirts and told them it was too short. The girls were sprayed with acidic substance that burnt and melted their stockings and caused deep lacerations on the back of their legs. The girls were treated in the hospital. The police is searching for the culprits that are believed to be the same ones, in both incidents.

According to media reports, uncovered women in Mersin, who wear shorter length skirts, are in fear of similar attacks.

Ok, the source is MEMRI (http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/5432.htm) ,who aren't noted for the accuracy of their translations, but let's assume that this story is 100% correct.

Presumably there are a lot of people in Turkey who find it offensive to see women walking around in short skirts, and a small minority of them are prepared to commit violence against any woman they see dressed in this way.

Suppose that women's groups in Turkey decided to show their disgust for the thugs by defying them and wearing short skirts in solidarity with the victims: presumably the people who are arguing against the publication of the cartoons on the grounds that they're "offensive" and "collective punishment" would say the same about this for the sake of consistency.

I on the other hand would say that it was a brave show of solidarity, support for freedom and an open refusal to be intimidated. How many people would disagree with me?

Isioma Daniel.

Does it ring a bell?

As a fashion writer, she authored a November 16, 2002 comment piece on Miss World beauty pageant that was to be held in Nigeria later that year. Addressing opposition to the contest from the Nigerian Muslim community, she made the following remark:

"The Muslims thought it was immoral to bring 92 women to Nigeria and ask them to revel in vanity. What would Mohammed think? In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from one of them."

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

This is a worse case, causing 200 deaths, but got less attention. Probably because it wasn't a westener that made the percieved insult, and that the reactions didn't go outside Nigeria.

...and possibly the fact that it happened in a country where domestic conflicts and ethnic strife saw to it that it was used as an exuse to act violently and kill rivals and opponents.

But a point is: This didn't go outside Nigeria. No universal Islamic outrage...

The guy is a former state minister and is a serving representative for the state assembly.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=546485

Quoted for someone to comment on who thinks this is not a big deal....

Quoted for someone to comment on who thinks this is not a big deal....

I dont think its a big deal. Hes talking big again. Nothing is going to come from it.


When idiots blow hot air, I ignore them. Thats why I ignore Bush, Chavez, and the president of Iran.;)

I dont think its a big deal. Hes talking big again. Nothing is going to come from it.


When idiots blow hot air, I ignore them. Thats why I ignore Bush, Chavez, and the president of Iran.;)

Yeah, but keep it mind it's TAI quoting a post from Aryavartha. When they both see an asshole who is Muslim or claims to be Muslim blowing hot air, they both like to present it as authentic evidence of t3h eb1l m05l3m h1v3m1nd still trying to assimilate humanity into Allah.

I hadn't been planning on coming back to this thread as it was beginning to get boring, but then I saw a story via Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) and the parallels struck me:



Ok, the source is MEMRI (http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/5432.htm) ,who aren't noted for the accuracy of their translations, but let's assume that this story is 100% correct.

Presumably there are a lot of people in Turkey who find it offensive to see women walking around in short skirts, and a small minority of them are prepared to commit violence against any woman they see dressed in this way.

Suppose that women's groups in Turkey decided to show their disgust for the thugs by defying them and wearing short skirts in solidarity with the victims: presumably the people who are arguing against the publication of the cartoons on the grounds that they're "offensive" and "collective punishment" would say the same about this for the sake of consistency.

I on the other hand would say that it was a brave show of solidarity, support for freedom and an open refusal to be intimidated. How many people would disagree with me?

There is a qualitative difference between 'people who believe that women should be assaulted and mutilated' and Muslims. One group has beliefs that are inherently violent. One does not.

Quoted for someone to comment on who thinks this is not a big deal....

That guy reminded me of Cristoph Blocher. Both of them seemed to be trying to whip up a climate of intolerance and xenophobia. And both seem to want to do it for consolidating their political power.

Yeah, but keep it mind it's TAI quoting a post from Aryavartha. When they both see an asshole who is Muslim or claims to be Muslim blowing hot air, they both like to present it as authentic evidence of t3h eb1l m05l3m h1v3m1nd still trying to assimilate humanity into Allah.

I don't have much time for TAI but Aryavartha did nothing of the kind: his comment was limited to clarifying that "The guy is a former state minister and is a serving representative for the state assembly".

Can't somebody point out that an elected official in India put a bounty on the head of a cartoonist and hasn't faced repercussions without being smeared as a bigot?

Incidentally, it'd be nice if you posted an actual argument instead of just using ad hominems against everyone who dares to disagree with you...

There is a qualitative difference between 'people who believe that women should be assaulted and mutilated' and Muslims. One group has beliefs that are inherently violent. One does not.

As I pointed out in my post:

Presumably there are a lot of people in Turkey who find it offensive to see women walking around in short skirts, and a small minority of them are prepared to commit violence against any woman they see dressed in this way.

The actual thugs are just a subset of a larger group who find it offensive to see women walking around in short skirts, just as the violent extremist-Muslims are a subset of Muslims. I don't see a problem with my analogy.

I dont think its a big deal. Hes talking big again. Nothing is going to come from it.
I think the whole "bounty" thing is a really big deal...even more so when considering the fact that there have been Islamic attacks on people who have "publicly disgraced" Islam.
Yeah, but keep it mind it's TAI quoting a post from Aryavartha. When they both see an asshole who is Muslim or claims to be Muslim blowing hot air, they both like to present it as authentic evidence of t3h eb1l m05l3m h1v3m1nd still trying to assimilate humanity into Allah.
Hmm..so because he posts it and I quote it, it doesn't matter anymore because both of us quoted it?

Wow...glad you make sense, otherwise you would make no sense at all...
That guy reminded me of Cristoph Blocher. Both of them seemed to be trying to whip up a climate of intolerance and xenophobia. And both seem to want to do it for consolidating their political power.
Except that Blocher doesn't put bounties on people's heads for exercising their freedom of speech. So no, he doesn't really remind me of Blocher at all.


I don't have much time for TAI
...eh?
Incidentally, it'd be nice if you posted an actual argument instead of just using ad hominems against everyone who dares to disagree with you...
His posting history shows that it's not in his nature.

I dont think its a big deal. Hes talking big again. Nothing is going to come from it.
We'll see. Deaths do result from such things.
If it was you being directly targeted, you might consider it a bigger deal.

I think the whole "bounty" thing is a really big deal...even more so when considering the fact that there have been Islamic attacks on people who have "publicly disgraced" Islam.

I don't think it's meaning in relation to Islam is far reaching. BUT I happen to agree with TAI, that it certainly can't be said that it's no big deal. Offering a bounty for the cartoonist is pretty disgusting. Given this and several scandals surrounding this politician, I'm hoping that others in the government finally succeed in removing him from a position of power. He rather famously threatened some teachers to force them to attend a conference he was sponsoring (or holding, I don't remember the specifics).

He's a poor excuse for an individual.

I think the whole "bounty" thing is a really big deal...even more so when considering the fact that there have been Islamic attacks on people who have "publicly disgraced" Islam.

Deplorable.


Only good thing about it is that it seems to be an anomaly.

Yeah, but keep it mind it's TAI quoting a post from Aryavartha. When they both see an asshole who is Muslim or claims to be Muslim blowing hot air, they both like to present it as authentic evidence of t3h eb1l m05l3m h1v3m1nd still trying to assimilate humanity into Allah.

1@*@9191can7230873dg VV28219!!8$ !!!

I dont think its a big deal. Hes talking big again. Nothing is going to come from it.


When idiots blow hot air, I ignore them. Thats why I ignore Bush, Chavez, and the president of Iran.;)

Khomeini is long dead but ~one million pounds a year is still spent for Rushdie's security.

Not a big deal. ;)

Deplorable.


Only good thing about it is that it seems to be an anomaly.
No. It does not seem in the least bit like an anomaly. That is the problem.

Hmm..so because he posts it and I quote it, it doesn't matter anymore because both of us quoted it?

The guy is an asshole and he posted the bounty on a cartoonist and someone might be stupid enough to take him up on the offer. That's the point. The two of you take an obvious fact and try to present it as somehow being the will of the Islamic Collective. And in that regards I call bullshit.

His posting history shows that it's not in his nature.

I'd rather not spend hours hunting for links when anyone can look up both of your respective posting histories. And with you, it's no secret to anyone keeping up on NSG that you're anti-Islamic and anti-Arabic in particular. You know the old proverb about looking like a duck, walking like a duck and quacking like a duck?

1@*@9191can7230873dg VV28219!!8$ !!!

A Tamil bitching about how Muslims are violent. There's a fucking laugh.

A Tamil bitching about how Muslims are violent. There's a fucking laugh.
You're a joke. If you were really so rightious on your anti-racism crusade, you wouldn't make ethnic slurs in the absense of civil debate yourself!

You're a laugh. If I didn't have enough reasons to ignore your labelling of me before, I do now...and it's because of the way you're treating him.

You're a joke. If you were really so rightious on your anti-racism crusade, you wouldn't make ethnic slurs in the absense of civil debate yourself!

You're a laugh. If I didn't have enough reasons to ignore your labelling of me before, I do now...and it's because of the way you're treating him.

Where's the ethnic slur? Mentioning his ethnicity is hardly a slur. And it's also meant to point out that the actions of a few individuals in a certain group should not be blanketly applied to the rest of the members, the way the two of you are trying to blanket all Muslims as intolerant and violent without exception.

A Tamil bitching about how Muslims are violent. There's a fucking laugh.

!&@#@*VV&^@@999611

No. It does not seem in the least bit like an anomaly. That is the problem.

Oh really? Then I expect you'll have no trouble providing loads of examples. You know, articles about how Saudi sheiks promise gold for his head, that kind of stuff...

And it's also meant to point out that the actions of a few individuals in a certain group should not be blanketly applied to the rest of the members, the way the two of you are trying to blanket all Muslims as intolerant and violent without exception.
Nobody, repeat nobody, has ever said "all" Muslims are intolerant and violent. Repeatedly emphasizing that "we do not mean all, or even most, Muslims" does not seem to do any good, to people who just will not listen.
However, the proportion of Muslims who will support violence even in a petty context like this is a few percent: a minority, but too large of a minority to disregard.

A Tamil bitching about how Muslims are violent. There's a fucking laugh.

Your racism is duly noted, now why not try making an argument? At the very least try to explain how:

The guy is a former state minister and is a serving representative for the state assembly.

is equivalent to:

All Muslims are part of an over-arching hivemind and this man is its spokesman.

The sad thing is you're not even an interesting troll: at least MTAE's insanity was good for a few laughs, but you don't seem to realise that you need fresh material. Shouting "teh 3b1l l\/lu5l1mxors" might be enough the first few times, but if you really want to make it in the world of trolling you've got to have some fresh ideas or you'll end up a one-trick pony like Deep Kimchi.

Your racism is duly noted, now why not try making an argument? At the very least try to explain how:

Racism? Oh please. Again that statement was made to point out just out easy of a click-and-point deal it is to take the actions of a few individuals in any given group and then blame the rest of that forementioned group for those actions and paint them all with the same brush and deem them alike in every way. Apparently painting any other ethnic or religious group with the same brush is bigoted, but painting Muslims this way exclusively is promoting world harmony.

:rolleyes:

And you're conveniently ignoring his posting history, which include cherry-picked hadiths and verses from the Qu'ran as well as news articles which all are meant to imply "Muslims are bad, mmkay?" By itself that line means "Some jackass offered a bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist." But when you take into account his posting history, the overall picture is "Muslims are intolerant and violent and they promote the death of all dissenters by any means necessary."

The sad thing is you're not even an interesting troll: at least MTAE's insanity was good for a few laughs, but you don't seem to realise that you need fresh material. Shouting "teh 3b1l l\/lu5l1mxors" might be enough the first few times, but if you really want to make it in the world of trolling you've got to have some fresh ideas or you'll end up a one-trick pony like Deep Kimchi.

Let's not go throwing comments about one-trick ponies when you're part of the 'Islam is Evil' Bandwagon. It's ironic you're comparing me to Kimchi when he was on your side doing the exact same shit that these two are engaged in, posting article after article about some Muslim-related violence or choice religious passages trying to picture an entire religion of over a billion devotees as uniformly intolerant, violent and subhuman. And perhaps trying to imply the world would be a much better place without them.

If any other religion (and cults like the Co$ do not count) were facing the same shit that Jews faced before and Muslims are now facing today, I would be doing the same thing on their behalf.

Racism? Oh please. Again that statement was made to point out just out easy of a click-and-point deal it is to take the actions of a few individuals in any given group and then blame the rest of that forementioned group for those actions and paint them all with the same brush and deem them alike in every way. Apparently painting any other ethnic or religious group with the same brush is bigoted, but painting Muslims this way exclusively is promoting world harmony.

:rolleyes:

If you think that the legitimacy of an argument is affected in any way by the race of the person making it then you are a racist. It's not complicated.

Oh, and Islam isn't a race: trying to conflate an ideology with a race is silly. You wouldn't conflate criticism of Capitalists or Communists with racism now would you?

And you're conveniently ignoring his posting history, which include cherry-picked hadiths and verses from the Qu'ran as well as news articles which all are meant to imply "Muslims are bad, mmkay?" By itself that line means "Some jackass offered a bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist." But when you take into account his posting history, the overall picture is "Muslims are intolerant and violent and they promote the death of all dissenters by any means necessary."

Let's not go throwing comments about one-trick ponies when you're part of the 'Islam is Evil' Bandwagon. It's ironic you're comparing me to Kimchi when he was on your side doing the exact same shit that these two are engaged in, posting article after article about some Muslim-related violence or choice religious passages trying to picture an entire religion of over a billion devotees as uniformly intolerant, violent and subhuman. And perhaps trying to imply the world would be a much better place without them.

You really are pathetic aren't you? You just keep confirming what I said: that you're incapable of making any argument whatsoever and have to result to trolling and ad hominems. You accuse me of being part of the "'Islam is Evil' Bandwagon" (which I might add is a completely different proposition from saying "Muslims are evil", but let's start with distinguishing between race and religion and maybe later you'll learn to distinguish between a belief and a believer). Let's have a look at a few posts on this thread and let everyone see that you're nothing more than a lying troll:

As I pointed out in my post:



The actual thugs are just a subset of a larger group who find it offensive to see women walking around in short skirts, just as the violent extremist-Muslims are a subset of Muslims. I don't see a problem with my analogy.

^^Here I am saying that *gasp* not all Muslims are violent and implying that the violent ones are a minority. This alone is enough to prove that you're a liar, but let's get some more shall we?

While it's nice to see some maths on NS, I fear you're missing one of the central points of statistics: the formula you quoted only applies to an unbiased selection. Possible biases which could affect the results of the survey include:

-what percentage of Palestinians own telephones? If only the richer demographic can afford them then obviously you'll get a skewed sample. This is what led statisticians to predict that FDR would lose the 1933 election by a landslide...

-are Palestinians who approve and disapprove of the cartoons equally likely to care enough about the issue to answer a telephone questionaire? The answer to this seems to be a clear 'no': if they feel so strongly about the issue that they think the cartoonists should be murdered then they'll feel strongly enough to answer a few questions; if their response is an apathetic 'meh' then they'll probably just put the phone down.

And on the problems of extrapolating from Palestinian opinion to that of Muslims worldwide, it's worth noting that the Palestinians probably aren't feeling terribly well disposed to the west, or anything associated with the west, in the current political situation. Imagine the reaction if you'd asked a member of the French resistance whether they liked sauerkraut (I'm not necessarily proposing a moral equivalency, just trying to illustrate a problem).

^^Here I am critiquing the arguments of somebody who tried to use poll results to prove that a significant number of Muslims supported murdering the cartoonists.

That's right, I'm criticising attempts to generalise the opinions of Muslims based on insufficent data and thereby the catergorisation of Muslims as violent! Oh no! But that blows another huge hole in your ad hominem attack! And there's more:

If by "it's offensive to Muslims so it must be changed..." he means "paranoid petty-bureaucrats make silly changes while local Muslims look on with a mixture of bemusement, amusement and exasperation", then yes. There have been a few genuine cases of inappropriate censorship because of Muslim outcry (like the illegal police reaction to the documentary Undercover Mosque, or the Cambridge students threatened with an incitement to racial hatred charge for publishing the Mohammed cartoons in a college newspaper), but they're outnumbered by the instances of right-wing fearmongering.

^^Speaks for itself really. Here comes the grand finale *drumroll*:

Indeed. I've got absolutely no problem with criticising Islam when it's warranted, but all the Muslims I know well enough to talk politics with describe themselves as Socialists or Liberals: the idea that they all vote in one cohesive block is silly.

So we've established that you're either a liar, or you're trying to smear me without knowing anything about my posting history IN THIS THREAD ALONE.

Conclusion? You're a troll, who uses "bigot" and "Islamophobe" in place of rational argument in exactly the same way that Deep Kimchi used "dhimmi" and "appeaser". Now do you see why I made the comparison?

If you've got any integrity then you'll apologise for your slurs, but to be honest I'm not holding my breath...

If any other religion (and cults like the Co$ do not count) were facing the same shit that Jews faced before and Muslims are now facing today, I would be doing the same thing on their behalf.

Lying about people's posting history, smearing everyone who dares to disagree with you and making racist comments? I'm sure the Jews in Nazi Germany would have been really grateful for your support: "We go to the gas chambers happy in the knowledge that, somewhere, Gauthier is working tirelessly to make himself look foolish on the Internet!"

Incidentally, you've tried this ridiculous "no other religion is criticised as much as Islam!" nonsense already in this thread. I don't believe you ever responded to my reply:

Or we could even skip the founder and move straight on to the deity. Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Does this begin to approach the vulgarity of 'murderous paedophile' for you?

If you think that the legitimacy of an argument is affected in any way by the race of the person making it then you are a racist. It's not complicated.

Oh, and Islam isn't a race: trying to conflate an ideology with a race is silly. You wouldn't conflate criticism of Capitalists or Communists with racism now would you?

It has nothing to do with race at all. Much as you love to harp on "omg racism!" I stand by the point that it's easy to slap on the guilt by association label on any group whether it's ethnic or religious. Unless of course you think the Tamil Tigers are just a harmless football or cricket club, which was an admittedly snarky and perhaps excessive but still valid point about generalization and paintbrushing any specific group for the act of a relative few. Of course it's kind of funny how you're accusing me of doing what you are right doing now, screaming "bigotry" to silence criticism.

You really are pathetic aren't you? You just keep confirming what I said: that you're incapable of making any argument whatsoever and have to result to trolling and ad hominems. You accuse me of being part of the "'Islam is Evil' Bandwagon" (which I might add is a completely different proposition from saying "Muslims are evil", but let's start with distinguishing between race and religion and maybe later you'll learn to distinguish between a belief and a believer). Let's have a look at a few posts on this thread and let everyone see that you're nothing more than a lying troll:[
Conclusion? You're a troll, who uses "bigot" and "Islamophobe" in place of rational argument in exactly the same way that Deep Kimchi used "dhimmi" and "appeaser". Now do you see why I made the comparison?

If I wanted to be a troll, there'd be plenty of other ways to get attention.

And what's so different about painting an entire religion as evil from painting its members as such when the implicit statement about someone following an evil religion is there to begin with?

And yet despite what seems to be your rather fair and impartial view on Muslims, I can't help but wonder why you'd end up agreeing with TAI, who has made it no secret that he despises Muslim immigrants, particularly those of Arabic ethnicities. That is why I considered you a part of the bandwagon.

If you've got any integrity then you'll apologise for your slurs, but to be honest I'm not holding my breath...

Lying about people's posting history, smearing everyone who dares to disagree with you and making racist comments?

Lying about posting history? I don't lie about what isn't there, unless of course someone backtracked and managed to erase the inconvenient posts. Unless you're talking about your posts in which case I do apologize.

I'm sure the Jews in Nazi Germany would have been really grateful for your support: "We go to the gas chambers happy in the knowledge that, somewhere, Gauthier is working tirelessly to make himself look foolish on the Internet!"

That is such a classy little picture you painted there. And you're lecturing me on integrity?

Incidentally, you've tried this ridiculous "no other religion is criticised as much as Islam!" nonsense already in this thread. I don't believe you ever responded to my reply:

But the instances where a NSG poster cites Dawkins as a source for arguing that Christians are evil or threads where instances of Christian associated violence are linked to are next to nothing. Maybe one example as opposed to how many on NSG constantly harping about Muslims recently? Citing Dawkins as proof that Christianity is being demonized as much as Islam is right now is the same as presenting Alan Colmes as proof that FOXNews balances left and right viewpoints on its shows.

And you're conveniently ignoring his posting history, which include cherry-picked hadiths and verses from the Qu'ran as well as news articles ".

Nothing wrong with cherry picking from a Holy Book to prove a point. Ministers, priests, rabbis and imams do it all the time. I've never heard a sermon which goes "Let's all ignore specific passages here, and try to feel out the general intentions of the book as a whole". noooo, they say, open to page 314...

So if it's fair to use it to support a religion, it's equally fair to use it in the attack.

The very phrase "cherry picking" is actually a way of saying "don't try to support your argument by selecting examples", which is illogical, because it would leave behind only those arguments UNsupported by example!

LOL...The ironyyyyyyyyyyyy


Actually, I have said time and time again....that I am opposed to massive Islamic immigration to the West whether it be by Arabs, Persians, Balkan EUROPEANS (White people), asians..or anyone else.

Lying to try to make your point? Heh, nice....

So your saying you hate the religion, not the ethnic group/s mostly associated with that religion, correct?

Much as you love to harp on "omg racism!"
LOL...The ironyyyyyyyyyyyy

TAI, who has made it no secret that he despises Muslim immigrants, particularly those of Arabic ethnicities.
Actually, I have said time and time again....that I am opposed to massive Islamic immigration to the West whether it be by Arabs, Persians, Balkan EUROPEANS (White people), asians..or anyone else.

Lying to try to make your point? Heh, nice....

Actually, I have said time and time again....that I am opposed to massive Islamic immigration to the West whether it be by Arabs, Persians, Balkan EUROPEANS (White people), asians..or anyone else.

Lying to try to make your point? Heh, nice....

:rolleyes:

This from someone who posts that "Eurabia? No Thanks" pic. I mean, if you're opposed to Islamic immigration in general, why post a pic that implies Europe turning into an Arabic country if Muslims are allowed to immigrate there?

:rolleyes:

This from someone who posts that "Eurabia? No Thanks" pic. I mean, if you're opposed to Islamic immigration in general, why post a pic that implies Europe turning into an Arabic country if Muslims are allowed to immigrate there?
Eurabia is just the name, it is is alot catchy and flowy than Eurislam. It was also orginally a bit different than it is used in the modern usage of the word, which has gained alot of ground. It is about the Islamization of Europe, regardless of ethnicity. Anyone who beleives in the theory of Eurabia will not say "oh, Turkish or Algerian immigrants are ok because they are not Arabs." That's ridiculous.:rolleyes:

Some of these are more pressing than others:

Current usage of the term is wider than the version given by Bat Ye'or, with less attention for Franco-Arab relations, and more for immigration and Muslim demographics. Others, such as Bernard Lewis and Bruce Bawer have presented comparable scenarios, for which the term 'Eurabia' is now also used. It can no longer be exclusively identified with the work of Bat Ye'or. The Eurabia theory, as its supporters present it in the media, blogs, internet forums and online magazines, has included these elements:[9]

Islam is incompatible with European (western) values, and hostile to the Western world. The West is engaged in some form of war or civilisational conflict with Islam.
Islam seeks to replace European civilisation and values with its own. It envisions a Europe where Islam is the dominant religion, and sharia replaces the European legal tradition.
Western civilisation is explicitly Judeo-Christian, and the Islamic hostility is partly religious.
Muslims make continual demands in order to impose their own values, and concessions inspire fresh demands. Most if not all Muslims have this demanding attitude, since such demands are a part of their religion.
These demands are also intended to place non-Muslims (primarily Jews and Christians) in the status of dhimmi, and most Muslims find that the only appropriate status for them.
These demands should be resisted, but European governments, media and elites consistently fail to do so. They even pre-emptively make concessions to Muslims, including self-censorship. Their attitude is that of dhimmitude - the servile attitude of the weak dhimmi in a Muslim-dominated society. Dhimmitude is seen as effectively an act of treason against Western Civilisation.
Muslim immigration to Europe is a strategy, intended to gain control of Europe, by replacing its non-Muslim population with Muslims - it is not primarily economic in character.
The growth of the Muslim population in Europe by natural increase (high birth rates) is also part of this strategy - "outbreeding the enemy." There are already many more Muslims in Europe than official statistics admit -- with some countries like France and Belgium refusing to even count their minorities -- and within several generations (at least by 2100) they will form a majority. European governments have actively facilitated this strategy by allowing continuous immigration from Muslim countries, which is also tantamount to treason.
Even before they are a majority, Muslims will dominate European politics because of their numbers and the complacent dhimmitude of politicians and elites, who consistently fail to offer any resistance to them.

Eurabia is just the name, it is is alot catchy and flowy than Eurislam.

Yeah, if by "catchy and flowy" you mean "racist, bigoted and ignorant."

And the only reason it "catches" amongst your kind so well is because to most of you, Muslims=Arabs so it says the same thing to you.

You know, why be accurate in your fearmongering when you can be "catchy" AND racist?

Anyone who beleives in the theory of Eurabia will not say "oh, Turkish or Algerian immigrants are ok because they are not Arabs." That's ridiculous.:rolleyes:

Yes, what is ridiculous is the idea that people who believe your "theory" - that is, people who hate and fear immigrants and Muslims - would ever say any kind of Non-White immigrant would be "ok."

As I pointed out in my post:

The actual thugs are just a subset of a larger group who find it offensive to see women walking around in short skirts, just as the violent extremist-Muslims are a subset of Muslims. I don't see a problem with my analogy.

So, can I use the word '******' if a black supremacist acts like an asshole to me? After all, this person is just a subset of a larger group that finds it offensive for me to act like a free person, just as the violent extremist-Muslims are a subset of Muslims.

I think the whole "bounty" thing is a really big deal...even more so when considering the fact that there have been Islamic attacks on people who have "publicly disgraced" Islam.

WTF is an Islamic attack? Is it fun to make up phrases like that?

Except that Blocher doesn't put bounties on people's heads for exercising their freedom of speech. So no, he doesn't really remind me of Blocher at all.

Tactics may differ. The strategy is the same: blame problems on the Outsider, portray self as the protector of 'traditional culture', and people will follow. The irony, of course, is that Blocher blames Muslims, and this other guy blames non-Muslims.

Actually, I have said time and time again....that I am opposed to massive Islamic immigration to the West whether it be by Arabs, Persians, Balkan EUROPEANS (White people), asians..or anyone else....

Why is it so important to you that we understand exactly how you are a bigot?

It has nothing to do with race at all. Much as you love to harp on "omg racism!"

Harp on? I called you a racist twice, immediately after you tried to use a poster's race to denigrate his argument. If you don't like being called a racist I suggest you refrain from making racist remarks.

Given that one of your first posts on this thread was to say:

Muslims aren't even human according to the vast majority of NSGers, remember? The West is still in love with the image of them as insectoid killing machines all telepathically linked to Osama Bin Laden ready to follow his bidding on a moment's whim.

I find it rather hypocritical for you to complain when somebody calls you out on a racist remark.

I stand by the point that it's easy to slap on the guilt by association label on any group whether it's ethnic or religious. Unless of course you think the Tamil Tigers are just a harmless football or cricket club, which was an admittedly snarky and perhaps excessive but still valid point about generalization and paintbrushing any specific group for the act of a relative few. Of course it's kind of funny how you're accusing me of doing what you are right doing now, screaming "bigotry" to silence criticism.

If I wanted to be a troll, there'd be plenty of other ways to get attention.

And what's so different about painting an entire religion as evil from painting its members as such when the implicit statement about someone following an evil religion is there to begin with?

Off the top of my head:
-somebody might identify with a particular religion because of their family background without really believing it
-somebody might follow a particular religion because they don't know any better, making them confused rather than stupid
-somebody might identify themselves as a follower of a religion, even though their beliefs are extremely divergent from that religion

This also begs the question, what should we do if a religion really is evil? Should we refrain from criticising it purely because it's followers (some of whom might be perfectly nice people who came along for the reasons listed above) would be hurt by the accusation?

And yet despite what seems to be your rather fair and impartial view on Muslims, I can't help but wonder why you'd end up agreeing with TAI, who has made it no secret that he despises Muslim immigrants, particularly those of Arabic ethnicities. That is why I considered you a part of the bandwagon.

I've agreed with him on some points, I've explicitly disassociated myself from his views on other points. I'm usually a strong critic of 'false compromise' positions, but in this case I think the two ends of the spectrum both have some valid points: the 'left' (for want of a better word, I know it doesn't correspond to the actual political left) are correct about it being wrong to unfairly generalise the views of Muslims or subject them to collective punishment; while the 'right' are correct in saying that some Islamic beliefs and traditions are incompatible with Liberal-democracy, and that these should not be humoured or protected from criticism.

Also, while I disagree with anti-immigrant bigotry in general, I am concerned that such a large proportion of immigrants to the UK are coming from extremely conservative, religious countries (I'm thinking Poland and hardline African churches as much as the Muslim world), and I think we need to be able to have a reasonable, informed discussion as to how this is going to effect voting demographics without being stifled by accusations of racism: maybe they're coming here to escape the conservatism of their homelands, in which case all's well, but if immigration is going to tip the scales against issues like women's rights and gay rights then we've got a problem.

I guess I'd consider myself to be a Libertarian-Social Democrat, in that I believe in Liberty but won't tolerate intolerance.

Lying about posting history? I don't lie about what isn't there, unless of course someone backtracked and managed to erase the inconvenient posts. Unless you're talking about your posts in which case I do apologize.

Thank you, apology accepted. :)

That is such a classy little picture you painted there. And you're lecturing me on integrity?

Ok, I admit that it was a little over the top :p, but I was trying to express the fact that the treatment and sentiment towards Muslims isn't even comparable to what Jews faced in Europe. There's no institutionalised discrimination going on, and many countries have legislation to cut down on discrimination in general.

But the instances where a NSG poster cites Dawkins as a source for arguing that Christians are evil or threads where instances of Christian associated violence are linked to are next to nothing. Maybe one example as opposed to how many on NSG constantly harping about Muslims recently? Citing Dawkins as proof that Christianity is being demonized as much as Islam is right now is the same as presenting Alan Colmes as proof that FOXNews balances left and right viewpoints on its shows.

It's a more a point of it not being seen as bigotry to critique Christianity in such strong terms (quite rightly), wheras do the same for Islam and people will claim it's bigotry.

So, can I use the word '******' if a black supremacist acts like an asshole to me? After all, this person is just a subset of a larger group that finds it offensive for me to act like a free person, just as the violent extremist-Muslims are a subset of Muslims.

Not a good comparison, as both of the issues I've brought up (the cartoons and the Turkish girls) are examples of people using their liberties in ways which cause offense as a side effect, rather than as the main intent.

Of course, if the situation was involved black-supremacists threatening to murder publishers who published anything involving the N word, even classics like To Kill A Mockingbird and the like, then yes, I would support a campaign to resist intimidation of the press.

What would your stance be on the hypothetical "wear a short skirt in solidarity" campaign be by the way?