To be fair we can't as a nation claim we are not guilty of that ourselves.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Printable View
To be fair we can't as a nation claim we are not guilty of that ourselves.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
To be fair, we are a nation severely divided.....how divided are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Also when are we going to start targeting mere civilians?
Not the same.
So the situation is escalating...
The Danish embassy in Damascus, Syria were set on fire today, and burned to the ground. Later the Norwegian embassy were plundered, with an attempt to light this on fire as well.
Actually, it seems our embassy is burning as well. All in the name of Allah....
Lovely, just lovely.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahctlucabbuS
The action is ignorant, but a practice of freedom of expression in appropriate fora.
The reaction is severe and destructive, and poorly directed, into the bargain.
Odd that, in a milieu which does not ordinarily countenance freedom of speech/expression, such acts are neither denounced or punished from within.
We on the outside must grudgingly grant it as a free exercise of the type we enjoy no matter it's effect.
Why, though, is it not looked upon as a home-front exercise of the religious oppression (for that is what it is) which immigrants practice upon their host countries? :huh:
With all the sentiment expressed here (and everyhere) about the historical transgressions committed in the name of religion(s), how is it this is so routinely overlooked?
Strictly speaking, if they burned down the Danish embassy and plundered the Norwegian embassy, then the acts were carried out on Danish and Norwegian soil. Hopefully nobody was murdered when they did this.
It really is quite mad and totally over the top. It seems that some people take draconian retribution as being an acceptable way to behave in the modern World. They feel that it's OK to run their own countries in such a manner, therefore it's OK to treat everyone else the same way. It isn't and I for one am sick of it.
If they make the case they are subject to oppressive political/religious sentiment, are we bound to make a countering case?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
The international bent toward "global" political-correctness would seem to dictate that this is so...even when any thinking person (as defined by our western sensibilities) would reject their actions as "quite mad and totally over the top".
Again-popular sentiment constantly warns of foreign policy heavily informed/influenced by religion (at least in the case of the U.S.); why are not similar cautions being voiced now?
Seems as though the international "community" prefers (as usual) to patronize second/third/fourth-world brown-skinned people by refusing to criticize their religion. ;)
SO you lump entire nations (but not ours) into one thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Okay, I'll ask this very, very plainly, since I'm currently treading about amongst you lot of thickos:
Why do we tippy-toe around the issue of religious conquest as practiced by fundamentalist Islamist whack-jobs?
It is of an undeniably religious nature.
It is insidious, intrusive and intolerant.
It has become all-pervading, and promulgates under the guise of legitimate immigration.
It is being committed by people of a dusky hue.
Have I missed anything?
Can you use smaller words next time :blushing:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think that the western world should know by now, how serious religion is to them (ME). We should stop picking on them, why should we keep making fun of them (that's how they see it). We're mocking the most important thing to those people. The best thing might be to leave them alone. After all these riots and what not, the ME has lost a trading partner and maybe more.
I agree with the sentiment of this with the addition that I think this about all religious "whack jobs". One can try to differentiate between different groups with all the "but we don't do this or that" but at the end of the day fanatics of any design are just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I don't believe that anyone should be given a pass when it comes to questioning beliefs (or lack of), but on the flip side I don't expect anyone to like it and just as I feel the publishers of the cartoon in question have the right to do what they did the people that took offence have the right to boycott. What I will dispute with them is the point at which the justification for certain actions has been passed.
Of course there has to come a point where we have to ask ourselves that just because we can do something.......should we ? or is it worth doing?
Nobody were. The Norwegian embassy did burn down though. At the moment they're evacuating all personel from the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
link with video
They could keep their own counsel on such matters and still get the message across.Quote:
Originally Posted by maebach
Example:
If they forewent trade, etc., it would surely not go unnoticed, correct?
Do you think the Danes could/would ignore that circumstance, preferring to wait for their embassies, et.al. to burn before they take note?
While we wait for cooler heads to prevail (as with the terrorist/religious interface), we find the cooler heads to be cowed by the violence instead.
One of the world's largest religions held hostage by a microscopic and dispeptic sub-group?
Is it that, or are they just shy, do you think?
I still dont understand :blushing: :pinch: :(
I feel stupid talking to you guys.
whoever the fools were who destroyed the embassies in syria are not following islam properly. im a muslim, and while i am upset over denmark and other european countries for publishing those pictures, destroying buildings is going way to over the line. the quran (quran is for muslims like bibles to christianity) strictly prohibits any acts of terrorism and or violence such as this. Therefore, i do not like people destroying buildings and doing killings in the name of Allah, but i also think that the european countries could have done a better role in their part to make sure this didnt happen.
So Islamic countries have the right to apply censorship to newspapers in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by infared
Fine, could you give your women equal rights please.
Not that I want to force my values on you, or 'owt.
Please don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by maebach
Let's see...
Christian religion has, over it's history, a bit of a mean-streak, born of conquests , crusades and basically oppressive behaviors; this tendency created a lot of ill-will between and amongst the crusading factions and those they intended to convert.
The strategy was simple:
March, on a very war-like footing, into any "primitive" society and re-create it in whatever subservient fashion suited.
To make a long story short, the upshot was a dilution of such religious activity, due to widely varying opinions among the conquerers and conquered as to just what was proper for religion to do to, or expect from, it's adherents.
This dilution has had the effect of taking the starch out of aggressive Christian conversion, and the largest efforts taken on behalf of Christian religion these days are of the type that help those who need it most.
Christian religions continue, however, to suffer the slings and arrows of their past misadventure, and race (white European/American vs. "any other color") has been injected into the issue, as well as the complications arising from western support of the Israeli state in the geographic cradle of Islam.
Comes now the exportation of Islam to the rest of the world under the guise of innocent immigation, and, apart from the objectionable terrorist factions, there is a commitment on the part of larger Islam to expand, envelope, and extinguish other religions, and a distinct lack of any compulsion to recognize Israel in any way.
Now, as Christianity is still viewed askance for it's past, why is it that, given this as a prime historical example, no one draws any parallels to an expansionist tendency Islam does not effectively or officially disavow?
Any sentiments to the contrary are almost whispered, and in any case are no more than anecdotal.
What are we to think or conclude of all this?
Infared a had a point, which basically reinforces mine on how the western countries shouldn't pick on islam. We know that they're (ME people) gonna go out of control, so why encourage them?
I think I understand j2k4, but we're goin out so I'll summarize what I understand later.
thanks.
No. I fully support freedom of expression and such, but attacking Islam by depicting the Prophet with rockets isnt really helping anyone, is disrespectful and isnt true.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Our women already have equal rights in Islam. Go to countries such as Pakistan, you will see that they are allowed to do anything that men do, vote, drive, run for President/Prime Minister (already have had a women prime minister), etc. Its just that some hard core radical countries such as Saudi Arab don't want to give them the rights they deserve, even though Quran specifically states that both men and women are equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Granting I've picked a bit of a side issue (that anti-Christian rhetoric is at it's usual high ebb, especially here in the States, and Christian aid, as in Africa, is somewhat under-appreciated), my salient point is that those who take up for Islamic freedom of expression are strangely silent when comes time to speak out over terrororism, Israel, and Islamic expansion.
Are you all Muslims, or not?
If you disagree with fundamentalist intolerance and terrorism, why not firmly dissociate yourselves from them, and speak out against the fundamentalists?
Why is Bin Laden so popular with the Arab "street"?
Why is every other child born to a Muslim family named Usama?
If you'll excuse the phrase, something is rotten in Denmark.
Oh sorry, did I tar a whole group of people with the same brush, based on what a small section did.Quote:
Originally Posted by infared
Heaven forfend that anyone would do that. Like burning down buildings, risking lives and imposing sanctions because a newspaper printed a cartoon. That would just be mental
What was I thinking.
We are already trying our best. A lot of muslim organizations in the US and various governments have denounced terrorism and such. Its just that the media reports mainly on muslims who are terrorist then the ones who arent.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Wouldn't know as I dont/haven't lived in M.E. but its probably because of the anti-US atmosphere over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Actually a lot of Muslim families name their children Mohammed, after our prophet. Also Usama was a common name before the Taliban leader. Ex. Say their is a guy named John who is commiting crimes in a town. If a family names their new child John, it doesn't necessary mean they named the kid after the person who commits those crimes, it just a common name.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I haven't been following this story very closely, can someone clarify.
Have trade sanctions been imposed by the governments of the offended nations or is it a boycott by the people?
I have read of government statements that condemn but no official trade sanctions.
Heck here there was a resolution put up to remove the word "french" from french fries
Its too bad ,that a stupid cartoon which should be allowed to be printed as freedom of speech ,would cause a boycott on a country(Denmark) which has nothing to do with the newspaper, other than it runs itself in that country. There should be an apology from the newspaper , but the Danish government can't ,would not, and should not apologise. I live in Canada, I was born and raised here, because of third world immigrinants I can no longer call Christmas, Christmas, but now the Holiday season and a holiday tree. Give me a break. I too beleive in the right of free speech and the right of religion, but when are the extremist going to stop pushing there beliefs down my throat, and trying to change my country to there's. I agree they have the same rights as mysellf, but stop talking about preserving heritages and belielfs, cause no one is protecting mine, and I am still with the majoriity. So in a democracy majority rules. No in a democracy minorities have more rights, or they cry racism. The only thing I would boycott would be anything Muslim.
As far as Muslim organisation, they might denounce terrorism but they don't seem to be able to stop it. Nor do they boycott there neighbors who do support it. It is sad day when a cartoon cause a boycott and terroism does not.
You just proved JPauls point. The "hard core radical countries" (AKA "Islamic" countries, countries where the supreme law is the Quran) actively oppress women. Only in countries that has a more lenient (sp?) relationship between the Quran and their legislative/judicial system do women have something remotely resembling equal rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by infared
'Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I think you do have a point here Busyman,. I have not been able to find a place in the Koran, where the depiction of Muhammad in a cartoon, is forbidden. It's obviously a Taboo grown out of respect.
It would seem to me an attempt to place Muhhamad on a level similar to "God" Allah or Jaweh or whatever...which would probably make him turn in his grave.
...and that flag burning part is a very good point too...
:shutup: <------------- is this what they want us all to become...we have fought many wars to gain our right to free expression...and NO , you cant cut me off for a skin either!
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel123
Good post, only spoilt at the end by you forcing an image of your foreskin into my id.
I can't. I don't know how divided each ME country is.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I don't hear about a division, however.
my excuses for that, you see, I am rather attached to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Who's "we"?Quote:
Originally Posted by infared
I will quote from a post of my own here which still holds:
"Islam's interests in the U.S. are represented and promoted by many groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chief amongst them.
Amid a recent statement of their goals, this tidbit:
The elimination of references to"Judeo-Christian" when describing the heritage of the United States; CAIR will push instead for "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" or "Abrahamic", which phrase to be used "in all venues where we normally talk about Judeo-Christian values, starting with the media, academia, statements by politicians, and comments made in churches, synagogues, and other places."
Note there is no mention here of "Mosques"; in Mosques, the reference is to remain "Islam(ic)" only, no inclusion of "Judeo-Christian".
CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad, in a speech to a group of California Muslims in July, 1998, said "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
There are moderate Muslims who do not harbour hopes of Sharia law being implemented anytime soon. In all probabilities they moved to the US and Europe to get away from that nasty stuff.
However, they would appear to be pretty quiet and keep their heads down. One nasty individual kept telling a moderate that he was an apostate on a BBC chat show - much to his discomfort. We need moderates to rise up in angry protest at the mosques and schools that preach hatred and tell the miltants to go back to somewhere where they will have Sharia law.
The militants never seem to have a problem getting rent a crowd out onto the streets. Interestingly, the European security forces must have had a field day photographing all the protesters. If they are looking for potential radicals they should now have most on film. A silver lining I suppose.
It is interesting to see how opinions have hardened in Europe - many of the interviews on TV have been increasingly of the "tough" variety. I personally hope that a line can be drawn under this soon before the seriously right wing start to capitalise.
Could you please explain the difference between this statement of intent and the intent of the christian mission...to convert those that haven't already to accept christ as the savior?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Obviously the person that made this statement is not a "moderate" so the explaination needs to be a "like for like" so feel free to give me the pat robertson or jerry falwell version
Did you read the quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It came from the lips of Omar Ahmad, THE CHAIRMAN OF C.A.I.R., WHICH IS THE LARGEST REPRESENTATIVE ORGANIZATION OF ISLAM IN NORTH AMERICA. IT CAN SAFELY BE SAID HE SPEAKS FOR "OFFICIAL" ISLAM ON THIS CONTINENT.
This is much more than can be said about Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or even Jesse Jackson, vid.
The thing is j2, we used to kill people who wouldn't convert to Christianity, however we stopped doing that because it was wrong. P'raps in the fullness of time others will feel the same way p'raps not. P'raps they will learn that others have the right to choose their own path and indeed that there may be more than one path to the same end.
That being said, we did it to people who were weaker than us and couldn't do much about it. I feel confident that we can protect out right to live in a World where people can make choices for themselves. Feck we even defend the rights of people who would remove that very right. Which is really quite weird.
It is our very defence of liberty, that allows them to try to remove ours.
I was watching the news, and they showed, that musilim owned grocery stores here have signs showing that they do not carry products from Denmark. We cant blame only the muslims in ME, most have the same thoughts, very few said the disagree. Many people have the same thoughts, some are a bit severer (sp?)compared to others. This morning, while watching FOX, Juan Williams (I think hes a political analyst for some paper in the US) said something like if a religionmust fuss about something shows signs of it being a weak religion. I'll try finding the exact quote.
Wow have you guys seen this?
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004448.htm
Outrageous..
Yes I did read the quote, and I am sure it would take me very little time to come up with many almost exact quotes from American christian "leaders". The fact that you feel islam and christianity are organised differently and that the likes of falwell don't speak for you (yet obviously this guy speaks for all muslims) is not material to the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What could be more American than the president? yet I doubt you felt Clinton spoke for your America most of the time.
Even without the extremist like falwell the sole intent of a missionary to convert others is in itself an attempt at sole domination.
The important point is how one goes about it. See my last.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I have no problem with you trying to convince me that God doesn't exist, by reasoned argument. It would piss me off if you tried to do it by offering violence.
You are talking about extremists, which are NOT the majority of religious people no matter how it is framed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
... most of these people are not intellectuals, so a reasoned argument is highly unlikely. In fact a reasoned argument would probably cost you your life.
Looking ahead, the solution to the "Islamic" problem, for future generations, is probably to ensure that the Islamic youth, receive an adequate education, so that they actually understand what they are reading in the Koran.
Indeed, Christian fundamentalists are sometimes really harsh with the words they use.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc