'Draw Muhammad' Cartoonist Goes Into Hiding at FBI's Insistence After Assassination Threat
Published September 16, 2010 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
The Seattle cartoonist whose artwork sparked the controversial "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!" has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI after being targeted by a radical Muslim cleric, according to the newspaper that published her comics.
Molly Norris has moved and changed her name, the Seattle Weekly said Wednesday, after U.S.-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki placed her on an execution hit list. Awlaki -- who has been linked to the botched Times Square bombing and cited as inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre and a plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers -- reportedly called Norris a "prime target" for assassination and that her "proper abode is hellfire."
"You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week," Seattle Weekly Editor in Chief Mark Fefer wrote Wednesday. "That's because there is no more Molly."
"The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program -- except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab," Fefer wrote.
Norris ignited a firestorm in April after drawing a satirical cartoon to protest the decision by cable television channel Comedy Central to cancel an episode of "South Park" over its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.
In her cartoon, Norris mockingly proposed making May 20 "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!"
Soon after, a fan page popped up on Facebook, but Norris wrote on her since-shuttered website that she had nothing to do with it.
"I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,'" she said, adding that her idea was satire that was "taken seriously, hijacked and made viral."
"I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off," she said.
The 27-year-old Facebook page creator -- a Canadian woman who asked not to be identified due to fears of reprisal -- told FoxNews.com in July that she was visited at her home by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officials who advised her to remove her page and not to talk to reporters.
"I'm scared," she said. "I'm scared that somebody might kill me."
Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of any prophet as blasphemous and the "Draw Muhammad" page led to Facebook being temporarily blocked in Pakistan and sparked angry street protests.
In July, English-language Al Qaeda magazine "Inspire" attributed an article to Awlaki, saying Norris "should be taken as a prime target of assassination."
"The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are more targets to choose from in addition to the difficulty of the government offering all of them special protection," wrote Awlaki. "But even then our campaign should not be limited to only those who are active participants."
He warned that "assassinations, bombings and acts of arson" are all legitimate forms of revenge against the creators of blasphemous depictions of Muhammad.
"Now, with the defamation of Muhammad reaching the shores of America, I wonder whether the patriotic American Muslim will still have the audacity to claim that he enjoys the right to be a Muslim in America?" Awlaki wrote. "Does he understand that this right includes his duty to fight against those who blaspheme his Prophet?"
Awlaki invited Muslims worldwide to "stand up in defense" of Muhammad and for their efforts to "manifest in all appropriate" means.
Albatross wrote:Muslims overreact hysterically to a percieved slight.
+1 to the max
also,
Thank you for posting this thread.
These kind of responses from Islamic Clerics bother me. How is it anyway not hypocritical of them to burn the US flag, tell the West (other religions) we're infidels, and demand that we follow their religious practice of not drawing their prophets?
Hold your horses before you all try and flame me for being a bigot.
If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?
I don't think so. I think it's extremely bigoted for an Islamic cleric to issue a fatwa against someone for drawing a picture of Mohammed. I believe there was a Swedish cartoonist who suffered the same ill will from an Islamic cleric. So, this isn't an isolated incident.
The point is, if I'm not a Muslim, I am not bound by Islamic religious rules. It's that simple.
An open letter to Islamic Clerics:
Dear Islamic clerics,
Please stop issuing fatwas against people who are not of your religion for breaking your religious standards. That is insane and doesn't even make sense. Furthermore, you're putting the life of an individual in danger when you do that, also not good.
Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:Saw this earlier, pretty crazy. Still think "Draw Muhammad Day" was stupid though.
I'll agree that it probably wasn't the smartest move, however, she should still have been allowed to do it without fear of reprisal in the form of death.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:she should still have been allowed to do it without fear of reprisal in the form of death.
She didn't actually organise the day. However, I agree that you should be free to mock and satarise without fear of reprisal (other than perhaps mocking, satire or displeasure in return).
While I can understand it, going into hiding after such threats is essentially a victory for the extremists. The world needs to unite to stamp out extremists of all flavours and show then that they can't get their way through violence and intimidation.
All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.
Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.
It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.
Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.
All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.
Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.
It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.
Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.
This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?
I might also point out that going into the Witness Protection program, changing your name and relocating ect, seems to be a big reaction to a threat like this. I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most. Do they actually have the means to carry out these promises?
All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.
Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.
It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.
Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.
This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?
I might also point out that going into the Witness Protection program, changing your name and relocating ect, seems to be a big reaction to a threat like this. I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most. Do they actually have the means to carry out these promises?
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.
Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.
While I would sincerely like to agree with you, Reality speaks differently. Religion and Culture often go hand-in-hand and it would be foolish to discredit the links so swiftly.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that, IMHO, Relgion should be an entirely seperate matter from other aspects of our lives, but this is highly unfeasible.
Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.
You mean to say that Al-Qaeda has the capacity to hunt down and kill US citizens on US soil at their leisure, in addition to waging a war spanning several countries against the combined might of the Western Worlds forces?
Or is this more likely to be another Angry, Angry Imam or somesuch spouting the same tired rhetoric?
All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.
Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.
It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.
Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.
This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?
I'm not sure I follow where this argument leads, all thoughts of moral relativism aside.
Sucks for that cartoonist though, but it's odd that she would be so shocked at the possibility her cartoons would be wielded as political weapons. Who woulda thunk it?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Interesting. Is there a reason behind this assessment?
Oh man, this will be drawn out for pages. I prefer to hear his response on what exactly is to be done about it. I'm a busy man, I need answers in a timely fashion.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Interesting. Is there a reason behind this assessment?
Oh man, this will be drawn out for pages. I prefer to hear his response on what exactly is to be done about it. I'm a busy man, I need answers in a timely fashion.
Come on, lad. Answer the easy questions now. Chop chop.
Now people getting worked up when their god is made fun of = extreme?
I dont think so.
More like " our cultures value things differently , because i dont share the same view as you Muslims , har har ( Nelson laugher) "
In other words , some people really need to start respecting others.
Just because we personally dont believe or care about others believes , doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.
While I would sincerely like to agree with you, Reality speaks differently. Religion and Culture often go hand-in-hand and it would be foolish to discredit the links so swiftly.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that, IMHO, Relgion should be an entirely seperate matter from other aspects of our lives, but this is highly unfeasible.
Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.
You mean to say that Al-Qaeda has the capacity to hunt down and kill US citizens on US soil at their leisure, in addition to waging a war spanning several countries against the combined might of the Western Worlds forces?
Or is this more likely to be another Angry, Angry Imam or somesuch spouting the same tired rhetoric?
Never the less, should a Christian be held accountable for breaking Islamic laws? The answer is no.
It doesn't have to be Al-Qaeda that attacks the cartoonist. IIRC, the Swedish cartoonist with a similar situation was attacked and his house was attacked several times. I'm sure the people who attacked him weren't Al-Qaeda.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?
There's two thing here. Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick. Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.
I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.
On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?
There's two thing here. Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick. Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.
I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.
On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.
I agree with you. It wasn't a smart thing to do on the cartoonist part by any means, but it didn't a necessitate a fatwa endangering her life.
EDIT: I'm off to work so I won't be around to respond for a bit. Hopefully I won't get a fatwa issued against me while I'm here lol, oh wait...
Monster Rain wrote:
When it comes to human rights?
I think so.
Interesting. Is there a reason behind this assessment?
This might come off as slightly condescending, but I think that we have a better way of doing things over here.
Based solely on the difference in the way women are treated in the West compared to the region in which Fatwas are generally issued I would draw the conclusion that they should behave in a more civilized manner. I'm not saying that we should bomb them or anything, but we're well within our rights to look down upon savagery when confronted with it.
sebster wrote:Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick.
Obligation is not the word I would use there.
Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.
I think there is a very interesting question in all of this. What does 'drawing Mohammed' mean? Is it a literal drawing? What formats are considered the most offensive? Is there any distinction there?
I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.
The best controversy is highly artistic controversy. Agreed.
On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.
Supposedly, she didn't coin the term, but I never followed this story all that closely.
Monster Rain wrote:This might come off as slightly condescending, but I think that we have a better way of doing things over here.
For me at least, it is a matter of broad generalizations. You say that you are against some of the more despicable parts of these cultures, but that stands to offer a tool against all cultures that are in any way similar. I don't think that burying someone in the ground and stoning them to death is a tolerable action, but without specifics as to who has done that and what actions can be taken to stop it; it's relatively meaningless.
Stuff happened in the desert today. There were camels.
Based solely on the difference in the way women are treated in the West compared to the region in which Fatwas are generally issued I would draw the conclusion that they should behave in a more civilized manner. I'm not saying that we should bomb them or anything, but we're well within our rights to look down upon savagery when confronted with it.
No one is stopping you from doing so. It is not unreasonable to ask reasoning from you, on that same note.
LunaHound wrote:Ppl get worked up over up over racist jokes.
Now people getting worked up when their god is made fun of = extreme?
I dont think so.
More like " our cultures value things differently , because i dont share the same view as you Muslims , har har ( Nelson laugher) "
In other words , some people really need to start respecting others.
Just because we personally dont believe or care about others believes , doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.
Luna, the responding posts have, so far, maintained a degree of civility. More than other threads regarding
sebster wrote:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?
There's two thing here. Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick. Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.
I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.
On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.
While I would sincerely like to agree with you, Reality speaks differently. Religion and Culture often go hand-in-hand and it would be foolish to discredit the links so swiftly.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that, IMHO, Relgion should be an entirely seperate matter from other aspects of our lives, but this is highly unfeasible.
Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.
You mean to say that Al-Qaeda has the capacity to hunt down and kill US citizens on US soil at their leisure, in addition to waging a war spanning several countries against the combined might of the Western Worlds forces?
Or is this more likely to be another Angry, Angry Imam or somesuch spouting the same tired rhetoric?
Never the less, should a Christian be held accountable for breaking Islamic laws? The answer is no.
Should a Christian be held to Christian laws? What if they don't want to be?
It doesn't have to be Al-Qaeda that attacks the cartoonist. IIRC, the Swedish cartoonist with a similar situation was attacked and his house was attacked several times. I'm sure the people who attacked him weren't Al-Qaeda.
Point, but is ther honestly that much of a chance of this occuring in Seattle?
Well, I'm back. I've been up for over 24 hours waiting for my replacements and inprocessing them. Now it's time for some much needed sleep.
Actually, things have been pretty civil on this thread. Thank you guys. I think there has been some good debating without hate or venom.
Well, personally, I think if you belong to a religion and you profess to believe it, then yes, you should probably be held accountable for your actions and conduct within the regulations of that religion. Although, I know that no one is perfect which is why I believe you can't follow your religion perfectly. However, without going into a ginormous religious discussion, I also believe in the principle of repentance which helps you overcome said imperfections. I don't know what to say if a Christian doesn't want to be held accountable for their actions in relation to being a Christian. I suppose even if they don't want to be held accountable, by the very nature of professing to be a Christian, you would still be held accountable.
As far as an attack on someone in Seattle, I couldn't give you a 100% answer. I imagine whatever city you live in there is the possibility of an attack. I would venture that your probability would be higher in a larger city, such as Seattle, than a rural area like eastern Washington.
But I'd like to point out again, that we're all being pretty civil in this thread. Go us!
We are held to religious standards every day of our lives, regardless of our faith. Taste is easily legislated, especially when supported by a common belief. This may definitely be an extreme and ridiculous outcry against infidelity, but to think that it is the only instance of such behavior is absolutely absurd.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I agree with you. It wasn't a smart thing to do on the cartoonist part by any means, but it didn't a necessitate a fatwa endangering her life.
No, it doesnt' deserve a fatwa, you're absolutely right. But lots of things attract excessive penalties... I mean, if I hit on the wife on a notorious gangster I don't deserve to get curbstomped but at the same time a lot of the reaction will be 'why did you expect when you provoked the gangster, you idiot.'
It's the same thing here - why provoke the most extreme fringes of Islam, and why provoke them by breaking a taboo that's important to all Islam?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:Obligation is not the word I would use there.
No? I didn't mean to imply that we can never, ever offend anyone, just that you really ought to have a good reason for doing so. 'Look, they overreact when I offend them' isn't much of a reason, if you ask me.
I think there is a very interesting question in all of this. What does 'drawing Mohammed' mean? Is it a literal drawing? What formats are considered the most offensive? Is there any distinction there?
I think it's just any graphical representation. Art in the region was highly abstract before Islam, there was a general taboo on drawing any person, and I think that's where the taboo on drawing Mohammed comes from.
Supposedly, she didn't coin the term, but I never followed this story all that closely.
I haven't really followed this either. The first round with the Danish cartoonist was annoying enough, two groups of nincompoops trying to cause trouble where none need exist.
LunaHound wrote:Ppl get worked up over up over racist jokes.
Now people getting worked up when their god is made fun of = extreme?
I dont think so.
More like " our cultures value things differently , because i dont share the same view as you Muslims , har har ( Nelson laugher) "
In other words , some people really need to start respecting others.
Just because we personally dont believe or care about others believes , doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.
However, it is part of our culture that you can speak and indeed satarise freely (up to a certain point) anything that you want without fear of death threats. When you have such conflicting cultures, the more violent extremists of one culture should not dictate to the other what they can and cannot say. I would go so far as to say that it is the very presence of such people which spurs the west as a whole on to speaking out against Islam and satarise their views, since we generally don't go round burning the flags of Islamic states, declaring holy wars on people and generally behave like we were back in the dark ages.
I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most.
Just because we don't share the view of others, doesn't mean we can't respect them eh Luna?
I've been to several Muslim nations, they treat women like rats. They think gays should be stoned to death, they treat kaffirs and infidels worse than everybody else simply because they don't agree with them. And you talk about respect?
You wouldn't be able to argue with me in a Muslim country, for god made the man superior to the woman.
Islam disgusts me, almost as much as apologists like you who aren't even Muslim but take great offence on behalf of them.
Respect is earned, nor given freely. I don't respect rapists or murderers either, so how can anybody demand I respect something that makes equally little sense to me, and causes misery to millions of women around the world.
I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.
sebster wrote:No? I didn't mean to imply that we can never, ever offend anyone, just that you really ought to have a good reason for doing so. 'Look, they overreact when I offend them' isn't much of a reason, if you ask me.
Of course it isn't a good reason, in many ways it is a blatantly crappy reason. While I'm not fond of the fact that people can do these things, I think it is important that they are allowed to do so. There was an awful lot of reaction to the 'I'm going to burn this Koran' douche-nozzle, but I stand in support of his right to have done so. There are much larger problems to address when one idiot can stand up and garner international coverage in such an intense fashion. We are back on the point of journalistic responsibility and I am sure you're clear that I have an ambivalent position on that subject.
It's complicated. At the very least an enormous amount of pressure was mounted against the religious pyromaniac, that was definitely clear enough to see.
I think it's just any graphical representation. Art in the region was highly abstract before Islam, there was a general taboo on drawing any person, and I think that's where the taboo on drawing Mohammed comes from.
Huh, that's interesting. Much like the photo capturing your soul thing, I'm sure.
I haven't really followed this either. The first round with the Danish cartoonist was annoying enough, two groups of nincompoops trying to cause trouble where none need exist.
If there were more pressure against these kind of actions, not to say speaking your mind is inherently wrong, the anomalies we see now could very well never have existed; more importantly, never have been picked up by the larger media in such a grandiose way.
There needs to be a stronger force against this kind of stuff in the first place. I want this stuff picked up by the media on some scale, I just want that action to come with much stronger counterpoints, months if not years in advance. People need to know that the matchy-mcburnakoran is a fool, before he hits the big screen. Get him up there with a stamp on his forehead.
I have to agree with mattyrm on this one - I've lived in several muslim countries and have visited many more (though generally not those at war with us as mattyrm has ) and the culture shock is quite extreme. Even the more moderate nations have areas where you would hesitate to enter as a woman (especially if you were alone and from the west).
Plus they keep on mistaking me for a German, which is just inexcusable
Mattyrm wrote:I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.
While I am not entirely sure I agree that you are speaking from arguments based in logic, I agree with your general sentiment on this point specifically.
Now, I am very prepared to move past that outrage and work my way back into pragmatism. There does not appear to be any way to fight those issues, in those specific countries, without waging a war that is so far beyond our means it isn't even funny.
I prefer to acknowledge that we are not the only culture in the world. Whether we look down our noses at each other, or other countries, has very little bearing on much of anything. I would definitely argue that constantly attacking a religion with sweeping insults and suggestions, is hardly an effective way to convince millions upon millions of people, that we are right.
Islam, Islam, Islam. Milions. Of. Fething. People. In. Dozens. Of. Different. Countries.
LunaHound wrote:doesnt mean we cant give them some common decency /respect.
Yes everyone deserves common decency, respect on the other hand is a different thing.
As your mother hopefully told you, you don't get respect by burning peoples stuff, threatening to kill people and planning acts of terrorism.
Not all muslims are violent, not all muslims are extremists, but there are many thousands if not millions of muslims who are, they demand that westerners show respect for their beliefs but show none to others, from what i understand about the U.S. is that the U.S. flag is pretty much a 'relic', thee symbol of the country (due to such a relatively short history) so buring a U.S. flag would aquate to depicting the muslim prophet. they demand so much, while looking down on westerners like , thats not how you get respect
This is sad more than anything. Islam as a religion has come down a long way from what it "used" to be - the Koran even states that "respect all religions, as they respect yours".
And, don't mistake me for an apologist to these kinds of things - also, I'm not saying that we should live in fear of doing things like "Muhammad the Bomb" (the Denmark case from a few years ago, the artist still lives in safehouses) but that people should take into account that (much like internet trolling), if you know that something is highly inflamable, you probably shouldn't light a match.
Let's not forget that we're talking about an iconoclastic religion. Drawing their prophet is something that will offend not only an extremist.
Prohibition from drawing Mohammad isn't even stated in the Qu'ran. Some Muslims have no problem with it depending who you ask, in fact you can find several depictions created by Muslim artists if you dig.
Taking the opportunity to draw offensive pictures of Mohammad (him blowing a horse for example) under the guise of "fighting censorship" is dumb, almost as dumb as burning Qu'rans.
avantgarde wrote:Prohibition from drawing Mohammad isn't even stated in the Qu'ran. Some Muslims have no problem with it depending who you ask, in fact you can find several depictions created by Muslim artists if you dig.
Taking the opportunity to draw offensive pictures of Mohammad (him blowing a horse for example) under the guise of "fighting censorship" is dumb, almost as dumb as burning Qu'rans.
The Qu'ran does say that it shall not have idols, or images, of Muhammed (and if you could point me to those depictions, I would be thankful).
What we think of as free speech is not consequence free. I absolutely agree with your second statement. However, a drawing of Muhammed with a bomb instead of his turban is an interesting parody, and quite different from what you suggested (one that cost Denmark quite a few embassies and led to "nearly 100 deaths"). What it seems to me is that, on numerous aspects, we have a religion that is going through the "Dark ages" (sorry if I am at a loss to use a proper analogy), much like the Catholic one did. (Some seven centuries ago?)
Still, I read in many places that during that time it was a somewhat advanced culture, especially compared to most europeans. Elegant and literate, though it always had "harsh penalties" and sometimes placed low value on life. Wonder how the latter became the mainstay of the religion.
Destrado wrote:Still, I read in many places that during that time it was a somewhat advanced culture, especially compared to most europeans. Elegant and literate, though it always had "harsh penalties" and sometimes placed low value on life. Wonder how the latter became the mainstay of the religion.
Quite right, the islamic nations up to and including the 'middle ages' were pretty much glorious, full of art, scientific endevour, and open trade with other nations and were it not for the fall of the muslim's hold on parts of Spain, North America could have been settled by muslims instead of christians. Even around the time of the world wars islamic countries had greater levels freedom and tolerance.
Unfortunetly religious dark ages can take a long while to get through
avantgarde wrote:Prohibition from drawing Mohammad isn't even stated in the Qu'ran. Some Muslims have no problem with it depending who you ask, in fact you can find several depictions created by Muslim artists if you dig.
Taking the opportunity to draw offensive pictures of Mohammad (him blowing a horse for example) under the guise of "fighting censorship" is dumb, almost as dumb as burning Qu'rans.
Destrado wrote:Thank you, Killkrazy, that's quite interesting to read.
On an off-topic note, and regarding the Man > Woman, I've heard that under Hinduism, the reward of a Virtuous Woman is to be reborn as a man.
Internet high-five (without repost).
Uhm, yeah it comes up every now and than. Of course the upanishads and vedas are older than the old testament so it isn't really all that shocking. I can speak more to the Buddhist side of it off the top of my head. The historical Buddha supposedly said that it was better to be born a man than a women. Now there are several schools of thought on this. One is that it was the times and the other basically says that Buddha looked around him and saw that women were second class citizens generally, and most were not allowed an education. Without literacy and access to higher learning it would be more difficult for a woman to find enlightenment at that time. In other words, it isn't that males are inherently better, just that at the time (and still today to an extent) women aren't given the same resources as men and thus have an extra stumbling block toward enlightenment.
All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.
Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.
It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.
Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.
This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?
I might also point out that going into the Witness Protection program, changing your name and relocating ect, seems to be a big reaction to a threat like this. I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most. Do they actually have the means to carry out these promises?
Not really, considering the price put out on the head of an Irish Cartoonist with a bonus offered if he was "killed like a lamb", or the Danish cartoonist that had the guy with an axe go after him.
The thing that bugs me is that the only option that seems to be offered is to hide in her own country from these bastages. The FBI is telling her that she cant't be protected in her own country by law enforcement? It seems like gun owners scored a big point on that admission.
It might not have been the smartest thing to insult a religion that has time and again proven it has more than it's share of members willing to kill over a word of dissent and seems forever locked in a dark ages mentality, but on the other side of the coin, Muslims aren't shy about burning flags and celebrating things like the twin towers going down. Even before the U.S. went into Afganastan, the highjackers were being lionized as martyrs. The fact that some backwater preacher wants to burn some books, or a couple of pictures get drawn of Mohhamad overshadows 3,000 people being murdered, setting the war machine into action.
The thing that bugs me is that the only option that seems to be offered is to hide in her own country from these bastages. The FBI is telling her that she cant't be protected in her own country by law enforcement? It seems like gun owners scored a big point on that admission.
The cartoonist, Molly Norris, has changed her name and has stopped producing work for a local alternative newspaper, Seattle Weekly, according to the newspaper’s editor, Mark D. Fefer.
Mr. Fefer declined an interview request Thursday, citing “the sensitivity of the situation.” But in a letter to readers about Ms. Norris on Wednesday, he said that “on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I., she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.”
The F.B.I. declined to comment on the case.
This is the very reason why I tend to ignore stories like this. I have absolutely no idea what is going on here and I highly doubt the possibility that any of the news agencies that picked this story up do either. It would not be surprising if Mark Fefer declined comment because he literally doesn't know any more than we do.
The echo chamber loves a story like this. I happen to hate it.
The fact that some backwater preacher wants to burn some books, or a couple of pictures get drawn of Mohhamad overshadows 3,000 people being murdered, setting the war machine into action.
I'm going to ignore the fact that you grossly generalized with the sentences before this. I simply want to know what you mean by this sentence.
Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?
Wrexasaur wrote:I'm going to ignore the fact that you grossly generalized with the sentences before this. I simply want to know what you mean by this sentence.
Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?
I don't follow.
i think he was saying while the actions of one right wing preacher in america or a defender of free speech cartoonist gets embassies bombed/attacked/set on fire, hitlists made, and riots, while the group of muslims that say the west has no respect for their beliefs, have no problem burning effigies of world leaders and a country's flag or making persian rugs depicting the burning world trade centre
If am clear on this, what is suggested by your reading of that sentence, is that:
- One person can anger many people.
- There are a lot of angry people.
- There are two sides to this issue; disregard the complicated bits... or something.
That makes sense I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that I just read one of the most complicated and strange sentences I have ever seen... woah, I mean woah.
Wrexasaur wrote:If am clear on this, what is suggested by your reading of that sentence, is that:
- One person can anger many people.
- There are a lot of angry people.
- There are two sides to this issue; disregard the complicated bits... or something.
That makes sense I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that I just read one of the most complicated and strange sentences I have ever seen... woah, I mean woah.
Willfully obtuse poster is willfully obtuse.
He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.
Monster Rain wrote:
Willfully obtuse poster is willfully obtuse.
He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.
That depends on whether or not you differentiate between religious and nationalist symbols.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?
I don't follow.
As you might or might not recall, an obscure preacher in Florida a couple of weeks ago set off a firestorm in the Islamic world by threatening to burn some Korans. Even Christians in large numbers spoke out against this guy.
People are given death threats and attacked for a cartoon, article, or a book against Islam, yet there doesn't seem to be an outpouring of moderate Muslims decrying actions like this as there are against the preacher.
Contrasting to this:
When the Twin Towers went down, there was dancing in the streets in various cities in the middle east and celebrations among a fair section of the Muslim populace. The highjackers are regarded as heroes.
The U.S. went to war in Afganastan over the twin towers, yet somehow find themselves the ones being blamed for starting the war.
It boils down to a lot of hypocracy and political correctness about Islam.
Hypocrisy is really, really hard to prove. So it probably isn't the best line of criticism. For example, simply acting against one's words does not make one a hypocrite, as moral fortitude excuses one from the criticism.
That being said, the fact that almost all media is slanted towards the West has to be accounted for, and its quite rare for Western media to represent anything that isn't related to terror abroad.
I wonder if Feisal Abdul Rauf, (the guy building the ground zero mosque) will let her stay with him? That would be some good PR, and maybe change some minds. Or does tolerance center only work one way?
dogma wrote:Funny, I have that particular copy of the Koran.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Willfully obtuse poster is willfully obtuse.
He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.
That depends on whether or not you differentiate between religious and nationalist symbols.
Monster Rain wrote:He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.
Monster Rain wrote:
To an Islamist there is no difference.
Sure, but Islamists don't usually stage protests.
Lots of people hate the US, and lots of people that hate the US also hate their own nationalist 'identities'. They burn flags because they believe nations are artificial, and that they should not be considered valid means of discerning between groups.
It seems though in a lot of Middle Eastern countries that religion and government or nationality are one in the same. So, I can see how burning an American flag is like burning a Quran. Here's a key difference though. We don't issue fatwas to kill them when they burn a US flag. Also, we aren't accepting billions of dollars in aid and training from them and then burning their flags and calling them infidels and watching their soldiers die to defend our country and try to stabilize its government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Sure, but Islamists don't usually stage protests.
There was a protest in Kabul protesting the preacher who was going to burn the Quran. It including 500+ people including government officials. They were burning US flags and effigies. Also, they were claiming that the entire US population backed the decision to burn the Quran and that President Obama backed the decision. And these are the people that are accepting our aid and money and training and our troops lives.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
There was a protest in Kabul protesting the preacher who was going to burn the Quran. It including 500+ people including government officials. They were burning US flags and effigies. Also, they were claiming that the entire US population backed the decision to burn the Quran and that President Obama backed the decision. And these are the people that are accepting our aid and money and training and our troops lives.
So, yes, they do protest.
You're missing the Islamist part. Islamism is explicitly related to terrorism, not hatred of the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Also, we aren't accepting billions of dollars in aid and training from them and then burning their flags and calling them infidels and watching their soldiers die to defend our country and try to stabilize its government.
Do you really believe that the aid and training provided to the Islamic world is designed to help the average Muslim?
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
There was a protest in Kabul protesting the preacher who was going to burn the Quran. It including 500+ people including government officials. They were burning US flags and effigies. Also, they were claiming that the entire US population backed the decision to burn the Quran and that President Obama backed the decision. And these are the people that are accepting our aid and money and training and our troops lives.
So, yes, they do protest.
You're missing the Islamist part. Islamism is explicitly related to terrorism, not hatred of the US.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Also, we aren't accepting billions of dollars in aid and training from them and then burning their flags and calling them infidels and watching their soldiers die to defend our country and try to stabilize its government.
Do you really believe that the aid and training provided to the Islamic world is designed to help the average Muslim?
1. The terrorists hate the US. The Kabul protesters were Muslims and were spewing forth hatred towards the US.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
There was a protest in Kabul protesting the preacher who was going to burn the Quran. It including 500+ people including government officials. They were burning US flags and effigies. Also, they were claiming that the entire US population backed the decision to burn the Quran and that President Obama backed the decision. And these are the people that are accepting our aid and money and training and our troops lives.
So, yes, they do protest.
You're missing the Islamist part. Islamism is explicitly related to terrorism, not hatred of the US.
Not necessarily.
There are those that consider Islam to be political ideology as well as a Religion and aren't terrorists.
So now we are talking that the name of a city is holy to them too (and before the usual crowd complains there is another disco nearby making a reference to a Catholic monastery in their name).
Remember guys, be respectful with the Quoran, Muhamad, their names, their arquitecture, their culture, their pets, their cooking, their traditional flag burning.... or else.
M.
PS: Yes I`m being sarcastic
PSS: In Spanish Meca means a place very attractive to people for being the center of an activity. Hollywood es la meca del cine (Hollywood is the movie´s mecca. That´s the reason for the name and no, no matter what some Arab TVs say there was ever a mosque there
So now we are talking that the name of a city is holy to them too (and before the usual crowd complains there is another disco nearby making a reference to a Catholic monastery in their name).
Remember guys, be respectful with the Quoran, Muhamad, their names, their arquitecture, their culture, their pets, their cooking, their traditional flag burning.... or else.
M.
PS: Yes I`m being sarcastic
PSS: In Spanish Meca means a place very attractive to people for being the center of an activity. Hollywood es la meca del cine (Hollywood is the movie´s mecca. That´s the reason for the name and no, no matter what some Arab TVs say there was ever a mosque there
This is taken from that article.
'Calling a place for dancing and drinking by that name shows disregard to the feelings of Muslims.'
So, burning the US flag and threatening our citizens lives and strong arming us to conform to their religious standards isn't hurting non Muslims feelings?
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
So, burning the US flag and threatening our citizens lives and strong arming us to conform to their religious standards isn't hurting non Muslims feelings?
But you forget... the US is the Great Satan and there is no obligation to consider our feelings. Only the one and truly holy Muslim must be considered, tolerated and respected.
Feel free to saw the heads from the infidel. /sarcasm
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
1. The terrorists hate the US. The Kabul protesters were Muslims and were spewing forth hatred towards the US.
That doesn't make the protesters Islamist.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
2. Do you not?
No. Most of US foreign aid is wired through US contractors. Basically the US government buys some sweet things from sweet US contractors, and then send the resultant product to other states. Whether or not it does any good is not a paramount topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Not necessarily.
There are those that consider Islam to be political ideology as well as a Religion and aren't terrorists.
Yeah, but that's not Islamism. Islamism is basically Islam + Fascism, and it doesn't correlate with non-terrorist behavior.
The people you're talking about are basically just the Huntington version of Muslims, very much akin to the Huntington version of Christians (Koran burners).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Green Git wrote:
But you forget... the US is the Great Satan and there is no obligation to consider our feelings. Only the one and truly holy Muslim must be considered, tolerated and respected.
Feel free to saw the heads from the infidel. /sarcasm
I assume that you ignore the many traffic fatalities that occur in US life every day. Why are 'head sawings' more important?
Relapse wrote:As you might or might not recall, an obscure preacher in Florida a couple of weeks ago set off a firestorm in the Islamic world by threatening to burn some Korans. Even Christians in large numbers spoke out against this guy.
People are given death threats and attacked for a cartoon, article, or a book against Islam, yet there doesn't seem to be an outpouring of moderate Muslims decrying actions like this as there are against the preacher.
Is there any reason the larger media would cover it if they did? I mean seriously, 'calm guy has opinion' does not make for sensationalist news.
If you actually take a bit of time to look into it, you'll find exactly what you are looking for, it just isn't on cable TV with any regularity.
Contrasting to this:
When the Twin Towers went down, there was dancing in the streets in various cities in the middle east and celebrations among a fair section of the Muslim populace. The highjackers are regarded as heroes.
Contrasting that, there were and still are people in the U.S. that considered our government directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
I don't know what a fair section is, TBH. It doesn't mean anything to me. As far as I remember it, there was an awful lot of repetitive imagery and there still is, but it is almost always limited to less than a dozen occurrences. None of that makes it reasonable to wage a culture war on the greater part of two continents, if not three if we want to be thorough.
The U.S. went to war in Afganastan over the twin towers, yet somehow find themselves the ones being blamed for starting the war.
We went into Iraq and pretended that our army was addressing the problems coming from Afghanistan. By many accounts, our presence is a catalyst to creating terrorists. We are the reason that so much of this is happening, our presence in the middle east plays a big role in the fact that many countries do in fact hate us, all told. In spite of that, not all of those countries are responsible for terrorist acts against the U.S. It is no more reasonable to say that the people in those countries are individually responsible for terrorist acts against U.S.
They can burn as many flags as they please, I really don't care. I would however, like coverage of all sides, instead of the angry, loud, moronic, news selling movements that we are used to now. It's bunk, even with excuses about fringe elements presenting the greatest threat OF ALL TIME.
I'll let you finish. Thanks for clarifying on that, BTW, Relapse.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Well, I'm back. I've been up for over 24 hours waiting for my replacements and inprocessing them. Now it's time for some much needed sleep.
Actually, things have been pretty civil on this thread. Thank you guys. I think there has been some good debating without hate or venom.
Well, personally, I think if you belong to a religion and you profess to believe it, then yes, you should probably be held accountable for your actions and conduct within the regulations of that religion. Although, I know that no one is perfect which is why I believe you can't follow your religion perfectly. However, without going into a ginormous religious discussion, I also believe in the principle of repentance which helps you overcome said imperfections. I don't know what to say if a Christian doesn't want to be held accountable for their actions in relation to being a Christian. I suppose even if they don't want to be held accountable, by the very nature of professing to be a Christian, you would still be held accountable.
As far as an attack on someone in Seattle, I couldn't give you a 100% answer. I imagine whatever city you live in there is the possibility of an attack. I would venture that your probability would be higher in a larger city, such as Seattle, than a rural area like eastern Washington.
But I'd like to point out again, that we're all being pretty civil in this thread. Go us!
mattyrm wrote:Just because we don't share the view of others, doesn't mean we can't respect them eh Luna?
I've been to several Muslim nations, they treat women like rats. They think gays should be stoned to death, they treat kaffirs and infidels worse than everybody else simply because they don't agree with them. And you talk about respect?
You wouldn't be able to argue with me in a Muslim country, for god made the man superior to the woman.
Islam disgusts me, almost as much as apologists like you who aren't even Muslim but take great offence on behalf of them.
Respect is earned, nor given freely. I don't respect rapists or murderers either, so how can anybody demand I respect something that makes equally little sense to me, and causes misery to millions of women around the world.
I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.
Albatross wrote:
I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most.
There are thousands of millions of Muslims in the world. More than a billion, less than two billion. Roughly 20% of all people, or 1 in 5 people are Muslim.
By accusing that many people of being much of anything, you are being thoughtless and bigoted, just as KK suggests.
Thousands of millions of people, seriously take a few minutes to think about exactly how many people that is. It is roughly 3-4 times the number of people living in the U.S., of which there are something like 1-7 million Muslims.
Wrexasaur wrote:I'm going to ignore the fact that you grossly generalized with the sentences before this. I simply want to know what you mean by this sentence.
Backwater preacher --> Pictures of Mohammed --> 9/11 --> War?
I don't follow.
i think he was saying while the actions of one right wing preacher in america or a defender of free speech cartoonist gets embassies bombed/attacked/set on fire, hitlists made, and riots, while the group of muslims that say the west has no respect for their beliefs, have no problem burning effigies of world leaders and a country's flag or making persian rugs depicting the burning world trade centre
Isn't it part of free speech to burn effigies of world leaders and such?
So now we are talking that the name of a city is holy to them too (and before the usual crowd complains there is another disco nearby making a reference to a Catholic monastery in their name).
Remember guys, be respectful with the Quoran, Muhamad, their names, their arquitecture, their culture, their pets, their cooking, their traditional flag burning.... or else.
M.
PS: Yes I`m being sarcastic
PSS: In Spanish Meca means a place very attractive to people for being the center of an activity. Hollywood es la meca del cine (Hollywood is the movie´s mecca. That´s the reason for the name and no, no matter what some Arab TVs say there was ever a mosque there
Kilkrazy wrote:Guys, if you want Islam to be tolerant you won't achieve it by being intolerant.
yes the fact that non muslims aren't allowed to go to mecca (the religious mecca), the fact that forgeign women have to wear head scarve in muslim countries, the fact that you are not allowed to bring non-muslim religous items into Saudi Arabia compared to the openness reseved to the thousands of muslims that live in the 'west' (yes there are a handfull of that think the only good muslim is a dead one, and a larger portion are uneasy around them)
Islamic nations (not people) and the ismalists and angry muslims (just so dogma can can see the difference) are intolerent of anyone other than their version of islam let alone other religions.
dogma wrote:Lots of people hate the US, and lots of people that hate the US also hate their own nationalist 'identities'. They burn flags because they believe nations are artificial, and that they should not be considered valid means of discerning between groups.
that is the most rediculous thing i have ever read, muslim protesters and general mobs burn U.S. flags inparticular to express their hate of the country and its people not cos they are humanists
to many Americans the U.S. flag is more than just a symbol of state but an idiological symbolso for many Americans it would be as bad as burning a quran (you may not agree)
DarkAngelHopeful wrote: We don't issue fatwas to kill them when they burn a US flag.
No, we post threads on the internet where people regularly express the view that the entire region should be nuked, for example. Hooray for progress !
I haven't ever said that. Also, I haven't seen anyone say that in this thread. Not everyone who disagrees with the behaviors and actions of Islamic clerics issuing fatwas wants to "nuke them all."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Isn't it part of free speech to burn effigies of world leaders and such?
Isn't that part of western beliefs?
It's nasty when it happens to you of course.
So, are you saying that we should be okay with what they are doing? Not every one is as relaxed about the burning of the US flag or effigies of it's president or rugs that depict the burning of the two towers. Also, where are the internet forums that have a dominant Muslim base that are discussing these same issues and have a big portion of them being apologists to the West? Do you think there are sites where they are saying, "You need to respect their freedom to burn the Quran." Just curious.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:There are thousands of millions of Muslims in the world. More than a billion, less than two billion. Roughly 20% of all people, or 1 in 5 people are Muslim.
By accusing that many people of being much of anything, you are being thoughtless and bigoted, just as KK suggests.
Thousands of millions of people, seriously take a few minutes to think about exactly how many people that is. It is roughly 3-4 times the number of people living in the U.S., of which there are something like 1-7 million Muslims.
Think about it.
I think most people realize they shouldn't make sweeping statements about demographics of people. In contrast, should the 500+ protesters in Kabul have made sweeping statements about the US population and about president Obama saying we all supported the decision of the burning of the quran?
Isn't it part of free speech to burn effigies of world leaders and such?
Isn't that part of western beliefs?
It's nasty when it happens to you of course.
So, are you saying that we should be okay with what they are doing? Not every one is as relaxed about the burning of the US flag or effigies of it's president or rugs that depict the burning of the two towers. Also, where are the internet forums that have a dominant Muslim base that are discussing these same issues and have a big portion of them being apologists to the West? Do you think there are sites where they are saying, "You need to respect their freedom to burn the Quran." Just curious.
What I am saying is that if you believe that western culture and values are better than Islamic culture and values you should not descend to their level.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
I haven't ever said that. Also, I haven't seen anyone say that in this thread. Not everyone who disagrees with the behaviors and actions of Islamic clerics issuing fatwas wants to "nuke them all."
You haven't no..well..AFAIK anyway ....but it is a view commonly expressed both here and elsewhere.
Not everyone who disagress with the USA burns flags or blows things up or etc etc
@Killkrazy, I understand that. I also agree with you. It makes sense. I grew up with my mother teaching me to take the high road (doing mean things to your sister after she does mean things to you usually doesn't help the situation in any significant way). But, I guess what I'm saying is, who is teaching them to also take the high road?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Dogma, While I have no reason to doubt what you say about US aid and contractors, I've been in Afghanistan for 6 months and know that we hire lots of local nationals to help the local economies. Loads of them work on bases. Also, there are entire teams of soldiers dedicated to rebuilding Afghanistan and helping them out in their towns and communities. The focus shifted from winning their hearts and minds to their trust and respect. I truly believe that along with any other reasons we're here, we are here to help the people of Afghanistan get their country back from terrorists. A stable and self governing Afghanistan = a win for the US.
Wrexasaur wrote:If am clear on this, what is suggested by your reading of that sentence, is that:
- One person can anger many people.
- There are a lot of angry people.
- There are two sides to this issue; disregard the complicated bits... or something.
That makes sense I guess, but it doesn't change the fact that I just read one of the most complicated and strange sentences I have ever seen... woah, I mean woah.
Willfully obtuse poster is willfully obtuse.
He's saying, if I may break it down, that you can't reasonably complain about an American burning a Khoran if you have a burning American flag in your hand.
I'm also saying that the murder of 3,000 + people in the towers as well as the people killed in attacks because they don't agree with Islam in one way or another doesn't seem to rate as high on the outrage scale with a lot of Muslims, maybe most, in middle eastern countries. At least I don't see the protests about this over there on the scale of a the ones about couple of books being torched to convince me otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a little something I remember reading in the paper when it happened. No big protests about this one, either. Fourteen students burned alive because they don't have veils on?
Extremists of all kinds need a good bitch-slapping and to take a time out. No matter what your faith, behavior as described in the op is never called for. I will say to the Christians in particular though, whining about how it's not fair =/= turning the other cheek.
Lead by example. It doesn't work to talk down to people or cultures.
Most Islamic people including Imams and Sheiks are not extremists. There are several quite liberal Islamic nations such as Egypt and Turkey. Even Iran has a liberal tendency. Unfortunately, there are signs they are being pushed back to more Islamic Extremist by reaction to the western War on (Islamic) Terrorism.
Don't support the extremists by fighting them and being as extreme as they are.
Kilkrazy wrote:Don't support the extremists by fighting them and being as extreme as they are.
Unfortunatly in the real world extremists have weapons and want to kill and injure people, the 'hippy' approach only works if either everyone has the same belief or if there is a high death toll
I'm afraid that the terrorists won't be swayed by us being nice to them. Have you ever read this?
Osama bin Laden wrote:In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,
"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]
"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76]
Some American writers have published articles under the title 'On what basis are we fighting?' These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth - as an explanation and warning - hoping for Allah's reward, seeking success and support from Him.
While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.
(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.
When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.
(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.
(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.
(c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.
(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.
(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.
(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.
(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.
(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.
(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.
(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.
(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.
(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.
(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.
The American Government and press still refuses to answer the question:
Why did they attack us in New York and Washington?
If Sharon is a man of peace in the eyes of Bush, then we are also men of peace!!! America does not understand the language of manners and principles, so we are addressing it using the language it understands.
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.
(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.
(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.
We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.
(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.
(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.
(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.
Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?
(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.
(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.
(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.
(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.
(xi) You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries.
(x) Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.
(xi) That which you are singled out for in the history of mankind, is that you have used your force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war. How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O callers to freedom?
(xii) Let us not forget one of your major characteristics: your duality in both manners and values; your hypocrisy in manners and principles. All*manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others.
(a)The freedom and democracy that you call to is for yourselves and for white race only; as for the rest of the world, you impose upon them your monstrous, destructive policies and Governments, which you call the 'American friends'. Yet you prevent them from establishing democracies. When the Islamic party in Algeria wanted to practice democracy and they won the election, you unleashed your agents in the Algerian army onto them, and to attack them with tanks and guns, to imprison them and torture them - a new lesson from the 'American book of democracy'!!!
(b)Your policy on prohibiting and forcibly removing weapons of mass destruction to ensure world peace: it only applies to those countries which you do not permit to possess such weapons. As for the countries you consent to, such as Israel, then they are allowed to keep and use such weapons to defend their security. Anyone else who you suspect might be manufacturing or keeping these kinds of weapons, you call them criminals and you take military action against them.
(c)You are the last ones to respect the resolutions and policies of International Law, yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and rules against the wall with the full support of America.
(d)As for the war criminals which you censure and form criminal courts for - you shamelessly ask that your own are granted immunity!! However, history will not forget the war crimes that you committed against the Muslims and the rest of the world; those you have killed in Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iraq will remain a shame that you will never be able to escape. It will suffice to remind you of your latest war crimes in Afghanistan, in which densely populated innocent civilian villages were destroyed, bombs were dropped on mosques causing the roof of the mosque to come crashing down on the heads of the Muslims praying inside. You are the ones who broke the agreement with the Mujahideen when they left Qunduz, bombing them in Jangi fort, and killing more than 1,000 of your prisoners through suffocation and thirst. Allah alone knows how many people have died by torture at the hands of you and your agents. Your planes remain in the Afghan skies, looking for anyone remotely suspicious.
(e)You have claimed to be the vanguards of Human Rights, and your Ministry of Foreign affairs issues annual reports containing statistics of those countries that violate any Human Rights. However, all these things vanished when the Mujahideen hit you, and you then implemented the methods of the same documented governments that you used to curse. In America, you captured thousands the Muslims and Arabs, took them into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names. You issued newer, harsher laws.
What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values, and it screams into your faces - you hypocrites, "What is the value of your signature on any agreement or treaty?"
(3) What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.
(4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.
(5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins.
(6) Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
(7) We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you.
If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: "Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise." [Quran9:13-1]
The Nation of honour and respect:
"But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, and to His Messenger (Muhammad- peace be upon him) and to the believers." [Quran 63:8]
"So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be*superior ( in victory )if you are indeed (true) believers" [Quran 3:139]
The Nation of Martyrdom; the Nation that desires death more than you desire life:
"Think not of those who are killed in the way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive with their Lord, and they are being provided for. They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them from His bounty and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in a grace and a bounty from Allah, and that Allah will not waste the reward of the believers." [Quran 3:169-171]
The Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:
"It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it." [Quran 61:9]
"Allah has decreed that 'Verily it is I and My Messengers who shall be victorious.' Verily Allah is All-Powerful, All-Mighty." [Quran 58:21]
The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.
If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.
This is our message to the Americans, as an answer to theirs. Do they now know why we fight them and over which form of ignorance, by the permission of Allah, we shall be victorious?
Kilkrazy wrote:Don't support the extremists by fighting them and being as extreme as they are.
Unfortunatly in the real world extremists have weapons and want to kill and injure people, the 'hippy' approach only works if either everyone has the same belief or if there is a high death toll
I didn't get from what KK said that he wants to hand out flowers to extemists or share some granola with them at all. You seem to think not acting like extremist means not shooting them. We have no trouble shooting them. What he means is in our attitude. They show extreme intolerance toward others and their ways of life. We don't, or shouldn't, and that is one of the key differences. Not lumping all Muslims in together, not burning their holy book just to piss them off, and not targeting civilians are just a few of the ways we can be, and should be different than them without being 'hippies'.
@Monster Rain, I just read that whole thing. That is some epic, long @ss hate. I feel like that guy hates ME personally that's how much hate I felt radiating from his demands/threats. Of course, we know not all Muslims feel this way, but holy crap, some do.
EDIT: one small miskeyed letter can change the entire context of your post
I want to see that same picture zoomed out just a bit more, so all of us can take a look at exactly how small that crowd really is. If I am not mistaken, that was the crowd that was shouted down by counter-protesters. Pretty funny, seeing as a protest of like 20 people or less, isn't exactly monumental, not matter what signs they are holding.
Oh, and this...
I read a lot of that as, 'Freedom can go to hell', just freaking saying.
Wrexasaur wrote:I want to see that same picture zoomed out just a bit more, so all of us can take a look at exactly how small that crowd really is. If I am not mistaken, that was the crowd that was shouted down by counter-protesters. Pretty funny, seeing as a protest of like 20 people or less, isn't exactly monumental, not matter what signs they are holding.
Oh, and this...
I read a lot of that as, 'Freedom can go to hell', just freaking saying.
So, what you're saying is it's okay for the protesters to have signs that say 'freedom can go to hell' but it's not okay for other protesters to have signs that say 'Evil Mosque?'
More importantly, Osama Bin Ladens real intentions are made clear. This is a culture war, one in which people from both sides are drawn in by ignorance and hate.
BluntmanDC wrote:
that is the most rediculous thing i have ever read, muslim protesters and general mobs burn U.S. flags inparticular to express their hate of the country and its people not cos they are humanists
Did I say that they burned flags because they're humanists? I think you need to calm down, and read what was written.
BluntmanDC wrote:
to many Americans the U.S. flag is more than just a symbol of state but an idiological symbolso for many Americans it would be as bad as burning a quran (you may not agree)
Yes, I addressed that idea earlier in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
So, what you're saying is it's okay for the protesters to have signs that say 'freedom can go to hell' but it's not okay for other protesters to have signs that say 'Evil Mosque?'
God, I love people that make noise over their favorite brand. Freedom isn't free, and the people that live outside the West know that better than anyone else.
Regardless, you're talking about differing nations, so the comparison is not uniform.
Kilkrazy wrote:Would I be correct in thinking that you consider the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to have been great successes?
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are probably the two best examples of failures in modern warfare and international diplomacy, and since neither have even come close to a good outcome yet, they are definetly not successes, i was trying to say that extremists will continue to be extremists (and be violent) because they follow an unshakable belief structure. i agree with you that the majority of muslims should not be insulted of mistreated because of the actions of the minority of these extremists, and i believe that a large amout of effort should be made to make the lives of people in Afganistan and Iraq better/safer/healthier, but extremists have to be fought
dogma wrote:
BluntmanDC wrote:
that is the most rediculous thing i have ever read, muslim protesters and general mobs burn U.S. flags inparticular to express their hate of the country and its people not cos they are humanists
Did I say that they burned flags because they're humanists? I think you need to calm down, and read what was written.
and you quoting someone out of context doesn't help anyone, now does it. i read what you wrote and that is my thought out reply, but maybe humanist was a bit ambiguous, you presented a very implorsable reason as to why people burn flags to which i showed by disagreement. its hard for me to need to 'calm down' seeing as i'm watching QI with a cup of tea
@Dogma, you've made a sweeping statement in saying that people outside of the west know that freedom isn't free better than anyone else. I'm from the west. I've been deployed. I think I have a pretty good idea that freedom comes with a cost.
Also, I was under the impression that both sets of protesters were in America protesting. Thus my comment about one set of protesters being allowed to say anti-freedom stuff versus the other set not being allowed to say anti-Muslim stuff. You can compare the protesters. We're comparing them right now through a Western Cultural Lens. And my point is, if you're going to apologize for some protesters saying anti-US stuff you should also allow the same privilege to those who are spouting anti-Muslim stuff.
BluntmanDC wrote:
and you quoting someone out of context doesn't help anyone, now does it. i read what you wrote and that is my thought out reply, but maybe humanist was a bit ambiguous, you presented a very implorsable reason as to why people burn flags to which i showed by disagreement. its hard for me to need to 'calm down' seeing as i'm watching QI with a cup of tea
Out of what context? I quoted your whole sentence.
Also, why is my reason implausible? I understand that most Westerners exhibit a love of country, but that shouldn't indispose you to alternate ways of thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:@Dogma, you've made a sweeping statement in saying that people outside of the west know that freedom isn't free better than anyone else. I'm from the west. I've been deployed. I think I have a pretty good idea that freedom comes with a cost.
No, that statement wasn't sweeping. I didn't use the word 'all', and there was a reason for that.
Also, I wasn't discussing the cost of violence. I was discussing the cost of redirected resources.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Also, I was under the impression that both sets of protesters were in America protesting. Thus my comment about one set of protesters being allowed to say anti-freedom stuff versus the other set not being allowed to say anti-Muslim stuff. You can compare the protesters. We're comparing them right now through a Western Cultural Lens. And my point is, if you're going to apologize for some protesters saying anti-US stuff you should also allow the same privilege to those who are spouting anti-Muslim stuff.
Well, I've only been to London for 2 weeks, but I thought they had similar freedom of speech laws. So, my comparison still stands. If you're going to allow your thinking to apologize for anti-freedom you should have room for anti-Islam.
Kilkrazy wrote:Would I be correct in thinking that you consider the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to have been great successes?
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are probably the two best examples of failures in modern warfare and international diplomacy, and since neither have even come close to a good outcome yet, they are definetly not successes, i was trying to say that extremists will continue to be extremists (and be violent) because they follow an unshakable belief structure. i agree with you that the majority of muslims should not be insulted of mistreated because of the actions of the minority of these extremists, and i believe that a large amout of effort should be made to make the lives of people in Afganistan and Iraq better/safer/healthier, but extremists have to be fought
I understand.
I certainly agree that extremists have to be opposed, though I am not sure that fighting them is always the best way to do it.
For example, after Islamic extremists perpetrated a massacre at Luxor in 1997, their cause was seriously damaged not by military action by the west, but by the reaction of ordinary Egyptians stung in part by a massive collapse of the tourist trade.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Well, I've only been to London for 2 weeks, but I thought they had similar freedom of speech laws. So, my comparison still stands. If you're going to allow your thinking to apologize for anti-freedom you should have room for anti-Islam.
Well, it's been mentioned before that a lot of Islamic countries don't separate their religion with there government which is directly related to their freedoms. From what I've read and seen most of these extremists and protesters don't separate the US/western culture/freedom/etc from religion either. So, it's almost like if you're protesting one, you're protesting the other.
The main point being, freedom, religion, culture, and government seemed to be really tied together in these debates. Which is why it makes sense that the anti-freedom protesters are protesting freedom and probably tacking on a whole lot more in their minds such as Christianity, the US in general, the West, etc. While a lot of people in the west also tie Islam to middle eastern countries and don't separate them.
I also see protesting anything as related to protesting anything else. If you're going to be apologetic for one protester's cause you should also be for the others. That's basic freedom of speech. Why should you condone anti-freedom and not anti-Islam?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Freedom of speech in the UK is limited by the slander and libel laws, race relations laws and laws against terrorism, among others.
So, are you saying you all can't speak out against those topics in the UK? I'm not really familiar.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Well, it's been mentioned before that a lot of Islamic countries don't separate their religion with there government which is directly related to their freedoms. From what I've read and seen most of these extremists and protesters don't separate the US/western culture/freedom/etc from religion either. So, it's almost like if you're protesting one, you're protesting the other.
Not necessarily. Never underestimate the capacity of people to be stupidly specific, even if they don't know it.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
The main point being, freedom, religion, culture, and government seemed to be really tied together in these debates. Which is why it makes sense that the anti-freedom protesters are protesting freedom and probably tacking on a whole lot more in their minds such as Christianity, the US in general, the West, etc. While a lot of people in the west also tie Islam to middle eastern countries and don't separate them.
Sure, but is that reall accurate?
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
I also see protesting anything as related to protesting anything else. If you're going to be apologetic for one protester's cause you should also be for the others. That's basic freedom of speech. Why should you condone anti-freedom and not anti-Islam?
Why should you be for hetero marriage and not gay marraige?
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Well, it's been mentioned before that a lot of Islamic countries don't separate their religion with there government which is directly related to their freedoms. From what I've read and seen most of these extremists and protesters don't separate the US/western culture/freedom/etc from religion either. So, it's almost like if you're protesting one, you're protesting the other.
Not necessarily. Never underestimate the capacity of people to be stupidly specific, even if they don't know it.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
The main point being, freedom, religion, culture, and government seemed to be really tied together in these debates. Which is why it makes sense that the anti-freedom protesters are protesting freedom and probably tacking on a whole lot more in their minds such as Christianity, the US in general, the West, etc. While a lot of people in the west also tie Islam to middle eastern countries and don't separate them.
Sure, but is that reall accurate?
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
I also see protesting anything as related to protesting anything else. If you're going to be apologetic for one protester's cause you should also be for the others. That's basic freedom of speech. Why should you condone anti-freedom and not anti-Islam?
Why should you be for hetero marriage and not gay marraige?
I guess we disagree on certain levels Dogma.
As far as hetero versus gay marriage, I don't separate those in my mind for the purposes of protesting despite believing in marriage defined as between a man and a woman. I'm sure that's a topic for another thread. You proved the point I was trying to make. If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
It is worth noting that there are also Islamic countries (e.g. Turkey, Iraq before we invaded) which operate a secular society, also that there are westernised countries (e.g. Ireland, Switzerland and Israel) in which religious based laws operate.
Even in the USA there are frequent and sometimes successful attempts to conflate Christianity with the state.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
Well, the point I've been alluding to is that 'things', as they are defined by non-physical characteristics, tend to be highly contentious.
For example, is gay marriage a different 'thing' than hetero marriage?
If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
That doesn't make any sense rationally or logically. Basically you are arguing that A = B. I don't even need to write out a truth chart to show that is not going to pass the muster. It is perfectly reasonable to support people protesting against a bill that limits speech and also be against protesters that want all red heads killed. Things aren't equivocated just by virtue of having someone protest. The thing that is being protested is what is important, not the mere fact that there is a protest.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Well, I'm back. I've been up for over 24 hours waiting for my replacements and inprocessing them. Now it's time for some much needed sleep.
Actually, things have been pretty civil on this thread. Thank you guys. I think there has been some good debating without hate or venom.
*snip*
But I'd like to point out again, that we're all being pretty civil in this thread. Go us!
mattyrm wrote:Just because we don't share the view of others, doesn't mean we can't respect them eh Luna?
I've been to several Muslim nations, they treat women like rats. They think gays should be stoned to death, they treat kaffirs and infidels worse than everybody else simply because they don't agree with them. And you talk about respect?
You wouldn't be able to argue with me in a Muslim country, for god made the man superior to the woman.
Islam disgusts me, almost as much as apologists like you who aren't even Muslim but take great offence on behalf of them.
Respect is earned, nor given freely. I don't respect rapists or murderers either, so how can anybody demand I respect something that makes equally little sense to me, and causes misery to millions of women around the world.
I don't respect Islam for perfectly logical reasons, I never will, and if you actually knew what several million afghan women had been through, I very much doubt you would as well.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't get it.
This pic(meme) was meant to represent my initial attitude towards this thread. Something along the lines of "Hey, wow. Look at this, Dakka is managing to hold a relatively civil discussion on the topic of Islam. No sweeping generalisation or provocative posts at all!"
The next one was my happy demeanor being crushed by mattrym's post.
Kilkrazy wrote:It is worth noting that there are also Islamic countries (e.g. Turkey, Iraq before we invaded) which operate a secular society, also that there are westernised countries (e.g. Ireland, Switzerland and Israel) in which religious based laws operate.
Even in the USA there are frequent and sometimes successful attempts to conflate Christianity with the state.
Too true.
While not arguing for direct Church control over the States, it's not too different from many 'Islamic' Nations.
dogma wrote:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
Well, the point I've been alluding to is that 'things', as they are defined by non-physical characteristics, tend to be highly contentious.
For example, is gay marriage a different 'thing' than hetero marriage?
Eh? Are you actually asking him to define 'thing'?
Kilkrazy wrote:Would I be correct in thinking that you consider the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to have been great successes?
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are probably the two best examples of failures in modern warfare and international diplomacy, and since neither have even come close to a good outcome yet, they are definetly not successes, i was trying to say that extremists will continue to be extremists (and be violent) because they follow an unshakable belief structure. i agree with you that the majority of muslims should not be insulted of mistreated because of the actions of the minority of these extremists, and i believe that a large amout of effort should be made to make the lives of people in Afganistan and Iraq better/safer/healthier, but extremists have to be fought
I understand.
I certainly agree that extremists have to be opposed, though I am not sure that fighting them is always the best way to do it.
For example, after Islamic extremists perpetrated a massacre at Luxor in 1997, their cause was seriously damaged not by military action by the west, but by the reaction of ordinary Egyptians stung in part by a massive collapse of the tourist trade.
The main problem is that Afganistan only really has one international product (Iraq has alot more options), opium, which for the most part fuels criminal enterprises who are still making money even with the war going on. although one stratagy would be to make the country a world supplier of morphine, killing two birds with one stone.
I really hope that both countries can begin to prosper because if the general populace is happy less of they will be turned to extremism, but as the situation stands now, if we stop fighting, people will die and not just our troops, but the locals you would then be victimised for 'betraying' the extremists and just think what they would do to the women who have been learning to read and using the new freedoms they have gained, unfortunetly there isn't a win win scenario, just a collection of least lose ones
More importantly, Osama Bin Ladens real intentions are made clear. This is a culture war, one in which people from both sides are drawn in by ignorance and hate.
I don't see how your point is made, at all.
The fact that terrorists are extremists was never in question. That doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Monster Rain wrote:What if you think both groups are crazy extremists?
I'd say, you're probably right.
This is what I was responding to, and agreeing with. It has been my point since I started posting in this thread.
You may have not suggested what I think you did, I apologize if that was in fact that case. There have been accusations in this thread that associate all muslims with terrorism, or more simply, hate for the U.S. Reasoning for this appears to be based in the idea that reacting in kind, with more hate, is in fact that answer to all of this. I completely disagree with this point.
I am going to step out of this thread for quite a while, my intention is not to breed confusion.
dogma wrote:I believe that Wrex was illustrating the fact that it is wise to bite off roughly as much as one can chew; ie. fight as few people as possible.
If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
That doesn't make any sense rationally or logically. Basically you are arguing that A = B. I don't even need to write out a truth chart to show that is not going to pass the muster. It is perfectly reasonable to support people protesting against a bill that limits speech and also be against protesters that want all red heads killed. Things aren't equivocated just by virtue of having someone protest. The thing that is being protested is what is important, not the mere fact that there is a protest.
It does make sense rationally and logically. I'm arguing that if you believe in and support freedom of speech you will allow it to happen. It feels like certain posters on this thread are okay with the thought that people protest the US and freedom but they are not okay in their mind with people protesting Islam. It doesn't matter if one is a religion and one is not. The point is, if you're only giving the seal of approval in your mind to one and not the other you aren't really supporting freedom of speech.
EDIT: Furthermore, how did this thread stray so far away from the OP? On that note, I still think it's ridiculous to have a fatwa issued against you if you break an Islamic religious standard and you aren't a Muslim.
If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
That doesn't make any sense rationally or logically. Basically you are arguing that A = B. I don't even need to write out a truth chart to show that is not going to pass the muster. It is perfectly reasonable to support people protesting against a bill that limits speech and also be against protesters that want all red heads killed. Things aren't equivocated just by virtue of having someone protest. The thing that is being protested is what is important, not the mere fact that there is a protest.
It does make sense rationally and logically. I'm arguing that if you believe in and support freedom of speech you will allow it to happen. It feels like certain posters on this thread are okay with the thought that people protest the US and freedom but they are not okay in their mind with people protesting Islam. It doesn't matter if one is a religion and one is not. The point is, if you're only giving the seal of approval in your mind to one and not the other you aren't really supporting freedom of speech.
.
You are still making your argument poorly as it still sounds like you are trying to equivocate two different things. I'm not really sure what you mean now.
[quote=DarkAngelHopeful
EDIT: Furthermore, how did this thread stray so far away from the OP? On that note, I still think it's ridiculous to have a fatwa issued against you if you break an Islamic religious standard and you aren't a Muslim.
Muslims believe that the laws of God applies to everyone. So do Christians.
Having said that, not all Muslims have issued a fatwa against this cartoonist. One highly extremist person has done so. It is what those kind of guys do and it is not representative of most Muslims.
Kilkrazy wrote:[quote=DarkAngelHopeful
EDIT: Furthermore, how did this thread stray so far away from the OP? On that note, I still think it's ridiculous to have a fatwa issued against you if you break an Islamic religious standard and you aren't a Muslim.
"Muslims believe that the laws of God applies to everyone. So do Christians.
Having said that, not all Muslims have issued a fatwa against this cartoonist. One highly extremist person has done so. It is what those kind of guys do and it is not representative of most Muslims."
When was the last time a Christian issued a fatwa against a Muslim for breaking a Christian standard?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
If you're going to allow tolerance in your mind for protesting one thing you should allow it for other things, even if you don't believe in them.
That doesn't make any sense rationally or logically. Basically you are arguing that A = B. I don't even need to write out a truth chart to show that is not going to pass the muster. It is perfectly reasonable to support people protesting against a bill that limits speech and also be against protesters that want all red heads killed. Things aren't equivocated just by virtue of having someone protest. The thing that is being protested is what is important, not the mere fact that there is a protest.
It does make sense rationally and logically. I'm arguing that if you believe in and support freedom of speech you will allow it to happen. It feels like certain posters on this thread are okay with the thought that people protest the US and freedom but they are not okay in their mind with people protesting Islam. It doesn't matter if one is a religion and one is not. The point is, if you're only giving the seal of approval in your mind to one and not the other you aren't really supporting freedom of speech.
.
You are still making your argument poorly as it still sounds like you are trying to equivocate two different things. I'm not really sure what you mean now.
Just because you don't understand what I've said doesn't mean it's been poorly argued. I'm sorry you're not understanding and I don't know why you don't understand. As I've already posted before, you don't have to believe in what is being protested to believe in their right to protest it. For instance, I don't believe in or think it's right to protest against freedom or Islam, but I believe in allowing them that right to protest. It seems like you are stuck on the fact that they aren't both religions. It really doesn't matter that they aren't both religions. In the example you gave before about killing red heads or something, it doesn't matter, what I'm saying is, regardless of what is being protested you should allow them to protest it. However, it seems like you and others think that out of protesting freedom and Islam, it's only okay to protest freedom.
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:When was the last time a Christian issued a fatwa against a Muslim for breaking a Christian standard?
I suppose when they shot that abortion doctor. Or did you think Christianity has never killed anyone in the name of their religion. It has nothing to do with religion vs religion (though the extremists would love you for making it into that) and everything to do with crazy and crazy. Of course thinking every Christian is a ultra-lunatic hell bent on destroying everything around them to get their way is just as ridiculous as believing every Muslim is that way.
Kilkrazy wrote:The equivalent is probably the various campaigns against heretics and infidels during the period of the Reformation.
So, are we talking back when Luther nailed the The Ninety-Five Theses up (1517) up to an ending in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia?
I'm not saying that Christians haven't done similar stuff. But either way, it's not right for any religion, including Islam, to try and punish you for not following it if you're not a practitioner, am I right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
DarkAngelHopeful wrote:When was the last time a Christian issued a fatwa against a Muslim for breaking a Christian standard?
I suppose when they shot that abortion doctor. Or did you think Christianity has never killed anyone in the name of their religion. It has nothing to do with religion vs religion (though the extremists would love you for making it into that) and everything to do with crazy and crazy. Of course thinking every Christian is a ultra-lunatic hell bent on destroying everything around them to get their way is just as ridiculous as believing every Muslim is that way.
Well, we can agree on that. I don't think extremists from any religion are doing much good doing crazy acts of crazy. And I have never said that all Muslims or Christians were crazy lol. I think the majority of the people on this thread understand that making sweeping statements isn't accurate. So, from my original posts, it still makes sense to say, that it's ridiculous for that cleric to issue a fatwa against the cartoonist because she's not Muslim. Maybe because I didn't follow that with, "also, Christians have done some crazy things too in the name of religion" you thought that I didn't think that or that I think all Muslims are nuts, but I don't know why you would infer that if you did.
Here is what is getting you into trouble I think. Islam isn't punishing anyone. Some idiots that practice Islam are. They aren't the same thing, just like just because one Preacher wanted to set Korans on fire doesn't mean all of Christiandom did. You keep typing that 'Islam is doing this' and 'Islam is doing that' but it isn't Islam that is doing it.
No one has said, or even intimated, that it was right for this to happen.
Ahtman wrote:Here is what is getting you into trouble I think. Islam isn't punishing anyone. Some idiots that practice Islam are. They aren't the same thing, just like just because one Preacher wanted to set Korans on fire doesn't mean all of Christiandom did. You keep typing that 'Islam is doing this' and 'Islam is doing that' but it isn't Islam that is doing it.
No one has said, or even intimated, that it was right for this to happen.
I'm glad you explained this because I understand more why you and others were commenting. I checked through my comments and I didn't see where I said Islam specifically, that being said, if something I wrote was interpreted that way, it wasn't my intention. In my posts, through the shifting of the many topics on this thread, I did mention specifically the particular cleric, Islamic clerics in general, protesters and Islamic nations all in relation to the various shifting ideas on this thread.
I have mentioned several times that I don't believe in sweeping statements against the Muslim religion or any religion for that matter.
But I think a lot of times people agree on things without knowing it, but I think that's the nature of forums. Stuff gets lost in translation or things aren't written out in length.
It seemed that you were blaming all of Islam for a crime by one person.
Ultimately a book or a cartoon is not worth a human life.
At to the topic of whether a religion has the right to impose a punishment on a non-believer for a religious crime, it is a complex issue.
Most large organised groups have codes of behaviour and sometimes seek to impose them on others.
The Atlantic Charter at the end of WW2, was the USA's successful attempt to impose its ideas of anti-imperialism on the European empires such as Britain and Holland.
India has created religiously based laws about beef.
Ireland still hasn't got rid of all its Roman Catholic laws around contraception and abortion.
Britain and the USA both have Christian factions who wish to impose their ideas about sexuality on everyone.
France and Switzerland have recently brought in religiously based laws.
The war in Iraq, and ongoing war in Afghanistan are western attempts to impose our ideas of secular democracy on tribal, Islamic regions.
Every group believes its ideas are the best, so naturally we (western secular democracy) do too, though spreading them by force is not necessarily the best method to use.
ing un
