4 ms·

Let's see ... Freedom of speech ... the answer is "No". Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Just o

by waps 12y ago

Let's see ... Freedom of speech ... the answer is "No". Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Just on page two of the newspaper in front of me is a depiction of green party voters as idiots. Apparently they're all women, ugly, fat and insane. This depiction is done to denounce what boils down to the actions of a city official. Should I write the paper complaining that there are multiple branches, men, and a great variety of ideas while complaining of racism ? An attitude like this will kill all humor. Btw what do you make of the primary source material ? Like that list of people muhammad had executed ? Is that somehow excluded from "mainstream" islam ? It seems to me a very well established point that islamic literature is not exactly peaceful, and "the prophet" is at best a warlord ... At worst ...

dragontamer 12y ago
As far as Freedom of speech... yeah, he can have it. As can I, and I'm using my freedom of speech to call out ignorance. Denouncing all Muslims is utterly Bigoted, especially when you consider how much in the minority the violent Wahhabist are in the great scheme of Islam. Denounce Muslims all you want... I'm not going to stop you. Yeah, you have freedom of speech. But instead, I'll use _my_ freedom of speech to counter-argue a point. >>> Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. What do the Irish Catholic IRA have to do with Mormans? Nothing. Or Protestants? I'm asking you to understand basic Islam here. There are many Muslims. The violent sect is called Wahhabism, and most mainstream Muslims denounce that sect (Shiite and Shia are mainstream IIRC). And much like how Irish Catholics don't represent Catholics as a whole (IRA violence was not condoned by the Pope), Osama Bin Laden's specific philosophy on extremely violent Wahhabism is only a minority opinion of that minority sect.
- waps 12y ago
  > Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. Firstly I would argue that other people in this thread doing just that. Well usually not the actions of the IRA, though the terrorist attacks against abortion clinics are mentioned (they were against buildings, of course, not people), and things like the crusades or the founding of America. Usually to advance the case of atheism by implying moral equivalence of all religions, and of course neglecting that atheists, specifically 20th century communist state atheists are by far the biggest terrorists and warmongers in history, certainly where death toll is considered. Christianity is in fact pretty far down the list when it comes to deadly ideologies. Certainly far below atheism. Examples from just this thread: > Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication. > If you look at the century centered on 1500: Just finishing 400 years of named-as-such Crusades, conquering much of the world in the name of Christ, violently repressing non-Christians in the areas it controlled, and getting started with religious wars between various factions of western Christianity which would be particularly prominent through the 17th Century. > Western christianity didn't leave all violence behind, see for example anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S.... And so on ... Secondly, an answer to that I often hear is that that's because making the case that Jesus was a terrorist is utterly impossible. An annoyance to the government, sure. A rebel ... if you seriously stretch the truth, you can probably make him a rebel. Making the case that muhammad was a terrorist (leader), sending out assassins, raiding parties and the like ... doesn't seem very hard at all. Not sure if he ever sent out suicide attackers though. This is also the story you keep hearing about terrorist recruiters. There's a reason terrorist recruitment amongst muslims works much better than among, say, christians or hindus or buddhists or ..., and that reason is differences in the ideology. But all of these facts are beside the point. Our society cannot possibly tolerate even a tiny minority of terrorists (and it will get worse over time : just think of what might happen if we discover portable and easy fusion power while having a small minority of terrorists among ourselves). Right now we still have margin, but it's blatantly obvious that that margin is eroding over time. Equally plain is that there is a breaking point where moral, social and political arguments are completely beside the point. Given the public reaction to this attack, I don't think we're that close yet, but we're getting closer. People would not respond at all if they didn't think it a threat, so in that view the demonstration is an escalation, even though I doubt Al Qaeda sees it as such. Also I'd be willing to bet that the French police, whether the agent is muslim or not, will effectively treat muslims worse because of what happened to Ahmed Merabet. It is no different from what happens if the mafia kills a police agent, but of course it will be felt by innocents just the same. But when demonstrating fails to stop terrorism and new attacks occur, public opinion will shift to include other solutions to terrorism. It seems to me we are maybe half a dozen shifts away from attacking groups ... Of course there are 4-5 terror attacks by muslims per week (thursday ... Charlie Hebdo, friday ... massive attack and massacre against a Nigerian town, Saturday ... suicide bombings one in a public market in Nigeria and one in Lebanon (Tripoli), Sunday ... two people beheaded on tape in Zuweid, Egypt). At that rate it could happen suddenly and really, really quickly. If you think about WWII and later the cold war, it would absolutely not be the first time that even America's state turns against minority ideologies that exist in their population, and the same is true in other countries. It's not like more than a tiny minority of US-Japanese would kill for the emperor, for instance.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    >>> This is also the story you keep hearing about terrorist recruiters. There's a reason terrorist recruitment amongst muslims works much better than among, say, christians or hindus or buddhists or ..., and that reason is differences in the ideology. You're so blinded by bigotry I bet you can't even tell the difference from an extremist Wahhabist Muslim and my Shiite next-door neighbor. And you can't even admit to me that these two people have vastly differing philosophies and vastly different interpretations of the Koran. Quit denouncing Islam in general and start seeing the world for the complicated mess that it is. I'm telling you the difference in ideology. Its called Extremist Wahhabist Islam. Again though, even this is a bit of an oversimplification as a good chunk of US allies in the middle east are in fact Wahhabists as well, and they're not violently attacking us. (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. etc.) Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance. >>> Our society cannot possibly tolerate even a tiny minority of terrorists Why don't you google American history? I mean, 1960s has an assassinated President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States... The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact. The last hostage situation in my town was by a Neo-Nazi, no joke. He got a few shots, killed a few security guards and had to be gunned down by the Police. Leftist Eco-terrorists have bombed labs. Anti-abortionists are shooting doctors and also bombing clinics. Even if you Genocided all Muslims, the US will continue to have terrorists try to make points. The issue of terrorism is completely independent of Islam. So stop being a Bigot, open your eyes to the facts. If you're gonna denounce Islam, do it correctly. Extreme Wahhabist Islam is a bad philosophy... growing in popularity. (ISIS, Al Qaeda). But outside of ISIS / Al Qaeda inspired Wahhabists, Muslims are actually quite peaceful within the US.
    - waps 12y ago
      You are attempting to conflate individuals versus ideology. Mustlims are individuals. Islam is an ideology. Islam is evil. No question. > Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance. And what do all Christians have in common ? Well, easy : Jesus. That's what you're referring to. What do all muslims have in common : "the prophet". This prophet : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca Of note : "Ten people were ordered to be killed:[14] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or criticising Mohammed or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace." (note also the fact that the prophet violated the terms of the peace treaty he signed beforehand, real peace of work this prophet) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids ... The list goes on and all in all "the prophet" directly ordered the deaths of at least 1200 people, some sources say 18000 is closer to the real figure. And let's just not mention that the guy did this to a 6 year old (don't worry, some muslim sources claim she was 8) (plenty of muslim countries realize that this is not moral, but always muslim clerics are fighting the state on this) : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/006-sbt.php http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... (search for "fondle", and yes, that's not a mistranslation. For a modern view google "thighing" for how this is translated into modern law and ... into modern ways to do something to female toddlers (which is both legal and done in Saudi Arabia)) There is no gray area here. There is also no sane argument that "some" islamic sects don't include this. Every moral human being would consider islam's central figure a complete abomination. The rest (the large majority) is either ignorant or (some of them) malevolent. So why is islam evil ? Simple. If you read the primary sources, there is no escaping the conclusion that the terrorirsts are right. If you consider massacring people for insults/criticism wrong, then the prophet is a monster, because he did that. Such a viewpoint is completely incompatible with anything remotely related to islam, for obvious reasons (for over a millenia, muslims were referred to as mohammedans, because "muslim" means believer, not of any specific religion, and was used to refer to christians) I fear to think about just how desperate you must be when holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of a "US ally", presumably to indicate the state itself is not extremist ... Now look here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjwOWJoY-k&bpctr=1421571560 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjwOWJoY-k&bpctr=1421571560 Heh ... I wonder why anyone would consider that extremist ? > The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact. And any historical map of the world will tell you exactly why that is. Incidentally, by death toll, islam is by far the largest cause of terrorism. By death toll per decade it's 2 orders of magnitude worse than all other sources combined. Furthermore there are huge regions where that is not true at all. South Eastern Europe, North and Central Africa, India, and parts of China. Additionally, the largest massacre ever (the invasion of India by the Mughals) was also committed by islam's followers. And it's not like that's islam's only mention in the top-10 massacres by death toll.

by waps 12y ago

dragontamer 12y ago

As far as Freedom of speech... yeah, he can have it. As can I, and I'm using my freedom of speech to call out ignorance. Denouncing all Muslims is utterly Bigoted, especially when you consider how much in the minority the violent Wahhabist are in the great scheme of Islam. Denounce Muslims all you want... I'm not going to stop you. Yeah, you have freedom of speech. But instead, I'll use _my_ freedom of speech to counter-argue a point. >>> Every other religion, and atheism, and every government party, and ... Don't get this treatment. Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. What do the Irish Catholic IRA have to do with Mormans? Nothing. Or Protestants? I'm asking you to understand basic Islam here. There are many Muslims. The violent sect is called Wahhabism, and most mainstream Muslims denounce that sect (Shiite and Shia are mainstream IIRC). And much like how Irish Catholics don't represent Catholics as a whole (IRA violence was not condoned by the Pope), Osama Bin Laden's specific philosophy on extremely violent Wahhabism is only a minority opinion of that minority sect.

waps 12y ago
> Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. Firstly I would argue that other people in this thread doing just that. Well usually not the actions of the IRA, though the terrorist attacks against abortion clinics are mentioned (they were against buildings, of course, not people), and things like the crusades or the founding of America. Usually to advance the case of atheism by implying moral equivalence of all religions, and of course neglecting that atheists, specifically 20th century communist state atheists are by far the biggest terrorists and warmongers in history, certainly where death toll is considered. Christianity is in fact pretty far down the list when it comes to deadly ideologies. Certainly far below atheism. Examples from just this thread: > Don't forget Islam and Christianity along with many other religions also actively promotes violence. In the west we tend to whitewash things, but for a less controversial example if you look at say Peter Pain or fairy tales there very different pre Disneyfication. > If you look at the century centered on 1500: Just finishing 400 years of named-as-such Crusades, conquering much of the world in the name of Christ, violently repressing non-Christians in the areas it controlled, and getting started with religious wars between various factions of western Christianity which would be particularly prominent through the 17th Century. > Western christianity didn't leave all violence behind, see for example anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S.... And so on ... Secondly, an answer to that I often hear is that that's because making the case that Jesus was a terrorist is utterly impossible. An annoyance to the government, sure. A rebel ... if you seriously stretch the truth, you can probably make him a rebel. Making the case that muhammad was a terrorist (leader), sending out assassins, raiding parties and the like ... doesn't seem very hard at all. Not sure if he ever sent out suicide attackers though. This is also the story you keep hearing about terrorist recruiters. There's a reason terrorist recruitment amongst muslims works much better than among, say, christians or hindus or buddhists or ..., and that reason is differences in the ideology. But all of these facts are beside the point. Our society cannot possibly tolerate even a tiny minority of terrorists (and it will get worse over time : just think of what might happen if we discover portable and easy fusion power while having a small minority of terrorists among ourselves). Right now we still have margin, but it's blatantly obvious that that margin is eroding over time. Equally plain is that there is a breaking point where moral, social and political arguments are completely beside the point. Given the public reaction to this attack, I don't think we're that close yet, but we're getting closer. People would not respond at all if they didn't think it a threat, so in that view the demonstration is an escalation, even though I doubt Al Qaeda sees it as such. Also I'd be willing to bet that the French police, whether the agent is muslim or not, will effectively treat muslims worse because of what happened to Ahmed Merabet. It is no different from what happens if the mafia kills a police agent, but of course it will be felt by innocents just the same. But when demonstrating fails to stop terrorism and new attacks occur, public opinion will shift to include other solutions to terrorism. It seems to me we are maybe half a dozen shifts away from attacking groups ... Of course there are 4-5 terror attacks by muslims per week (thursday ... Charlie Hebdo, friday ... massive attack and massacre against a Nigerian town, Saturday ... suicide bombings one in a public market in Nigeria and one in Lebanon (Tripoli), Sunday ... two people beheaded on tape in Zuweid, Egypt). At that rate it could happen suddenly and really, really quickly. If you think about WWII and later the cold war, it would absolutely not be the first time that even America's state turns against minority ideologies that exist in their population, and the same is true in other countries. It's not like more than a tiny minority of US-Japanese would kill for the emperor, for instance.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  >>> This is also the story you keep hearing about terrorist recruiters. There's a reason terrorist recruitment amongst muslims works much better than among, say, christians or hindus or buddhists or ..., and that reason is differences in the ideology. You're so blinded by bigotry I bet you can't even tell the difference from an extremist Wahhabist Muslim and my Shiite next-door neighbor. And you can't even admit to me that these two people have vastly differing philosophies and vastly different interpretations of the Koran. Quit denouncing Islam in general and start seeing the world for the complicated mess that it is. I'm telling you the difference in ideology. Its called Extremist Wahhabist Islam. Again though, even this is a bit of an oversimplification as a good chunk of US allies in the middle east are in fact Wahhabists as well, and they're not violently attacking us. (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. etc.) Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance. >>> Our society cannot possibly tolerate even a tiny minority of terrorists Why don't you google American history? I mean, 1960s has an assassinated President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#1960s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States... The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact. The last hostage situation in my town was by a Neo-Nazi, no joke. He got a few shots, killed a few security guards and had to be gunned down by the Police. Leftist Eco-terrorists have bombed labs. Anti-abortionists are shooting doctors and also bombing clinics. Even if you Genocided all Muslims, the US will continue to have terrorists try to make points. The issue of terrorism is completely independent of Islam. So stop being a Bigot, open your eyes to the facts. If you're gonna denounce Islam, do it correctly. Extreme Wahhabist Islam is a bad philosophy... growing in popularity. (ISIS, Al Qaeda). But outside of ISIS / Al Qaeda inspired Wahhabists, Muslims are actually quite peaceful within the US.
  - waps 12y ago
    You are attempting to conflate individuals versus ideology. Mustlims are individuals. Islam is an ideology. Islam is evil. No question. > Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance. And what do all Christians have in common ? Well, easy : Jesus. That's what you're referring to. What do all muslims have in common : "the prophet". This prophet : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca Of note : "Ten people were ordered to be killed:[14] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or criticising Mohammed or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace." (note also the fact that the prophet violated the terms of the peace treaty he signed beforehand, real peace of work this prophet) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids ... The list goes on and all in all "the prophet" directly ordered the deaths of at least 1200 people, some sources say 18000 is closer to the real figure. And let's just not mention that the guy did this to a 6 year old (don't worry, some muslim sources claim she was 8) (plenty of muslim countries realize that this is not moral, but always muslim clerics are fighting the state on this) : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/006-sbt.php http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... (search for "fondle", and yes, that's not a mistranslation. For a modern view google "thighing" for how this is translated into modern law and ... into modern ways to do something to female toddlers (which is both legal and done in Saudi Arabia)) There is no gray area here. There is also no sane argument that "some" islamic sects don't include this. Every moral human being would consider islam's central figure a complete abomination. The rest (the large majority) is either ignorant or (some of them) malevolent. So why is islam evil ? Simple. If you read the primary sources, there is no escaping the conclusion that the terrorirsts are right. If you consider massacring people for insults/criticism wrong, then the prophet is a monster, because he did that. Such a viewpoint is completely incompatible with anything remotely related to islam, for obvious reasons (for over a millenia, muslims were referred to as mohammedans, because "muslim" means believer, not of any specific religion, and was used to refer to christians) I fear to think about just how desperate you must be when holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of a "US ally", presumably to indicate the state itself is not extremist ... Now look here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjwOWJoY-k&bpctr=1421571560 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjwOWJoY-k&bpctr=1421571560 Heh ... I wonder why anyone would consider that extremist ? > The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact. And any historical map of the world will tell you exactly why that is. Incidentally, by death toll, islam is by far the largest cause of terrorism. By death toll per decade it's 2 orders of magnitude worse than all other sources combined. Furthermore there are huge regions where that is not true at all. South Eastern Europe, North and Central Africa, India, and parts of China. Additionally, the largest massacre ever (the invasion of India by the Mughals) was also committed by islam's followers. And it's not like that's islam's only mention in the top-10 massacres by death toll.