Muslim Extremists

• QuakerOats

  FatHobbit;1268905 wrote:Do you mean radical christians use hatred/fear to gain and maintain power? Or is running to the internet screaming about "the religion of peace" every time there is a terrorist attack (even when it's a norwegian who is opposed to multiculturalism) not trying to stir up hatred and fear?

  
  Was Breivik deemed sane and sentenced to the maximum prison sentence under Norwegian law, by Norwegians. Yes.
  
  
  As for the muslims and Islamic terrorists, we wait.
• QuakerOats

  http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html
  
  
  apology tour has yet to conclude.
• Devils Advocate

  

  I used to be proud.
  
  
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1268964 wrote:Was Breivik deemed sane and sentenced to the maximum prison sentence under Norwegian law, by Norwegians. Yes.
  
  
  As for the muslims and Islamic terrorists, we wait.

  21 years is just to you for a Christian who killed 77 people?
  
  Eidt: Just looked it up some more. It was the maximum though he could get additional 5 year sentences indefinitely if they want to.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;1268982 wrote:http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr091112.html
  
  
  apology tour has yet to conclude.

  You have a problem with the sentiment expressed there?
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants;1268992 wrote:21 years is just to you for a Christian who killed 77 people?
  
  Eidt: Just looked it up some more. It was the maximum though he could get additional 5 year sentences indefinitely if they want to.

  
  
  It is just in the sense that they went after their own and sentenced him to the longest sentence prescribed in their laws. Do I think 21 years is proper, no. Perhaps they will now see the incongruence of that and change their law to deal with situations like this; they probably will.
  
  Now back to the muslims and their imprisonment of Islamic terrorists for thousands of terrorist attacks committed around the world in the last ten years. We wait.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  FatHobbit;1268905 wrote:Do you mean radical christians use hatred/fear to gain and maintain power? Or is running to the internet screaming about "the religion of peace" every time there is a terrorist attack (even when it's a norwegian who is opposed to multiculturalism) not trying to stir up hatred and fear?

  I have admitted several times that I was wrong on that attack in Norway. The day it happened, I repeated a news article that speculated it was a Muslim terrorist. I got it all wrong.
  
  But let's be reasonable...if when a terrorist attack happens and you guess Muslims, you've got a damn good chance of being right.
  
  I don't hate Muslims. I hate Muslims who condone death in the name of their religion - or anyone else that does this in the name of their religion for that matter. I'm not stirring up hatred. I'm pointing out a huge fact in our world that Muslim countries contain a sizeable portion of population that believe it is okay to sociopathically kill anyone they deem an afront to their faith. There are not similar numbers or proportions of other religions killing in thier name in 2012. When the Buddhists start lopping off their women's heads and bombing discos in the name of Buddha - and their leaders convey a message as strong as "this is not Buddhism Buddhism is peace" - I'll point the finger at them.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1268997 wrote:You have a problem with the sentiment expressed there?

  What does their last sentence mean, exactly? -

  We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

  1. "We firmly reject the actions" - Free speech is OK as long as it's Politically Correct? How is it considered free speech then?
  2. "those who abuse the universal right" - Universal they say? Ever been to China? How bout Singapore? On another level, how is free speech abused? Unless someone is yelling, "fire", in a crowded theatre, there is no such thing as "free speech abuse". Now...there is stupid speech, idiotic movies, dumb flag-burning, etc....but those aren't examples of abuse.
  3. "to hurt the religious beliefs of others". Interesting concept. Does the writer mean people that disagree with a religion are actually hurting people's beliefs?
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1268917 wrote:Please, like it's not the go to tactic for the Republicans as well. "Obama will kill your granny with death panels", "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama is a Kenyan", "Obama is a socialist/marxist/etc", "Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America so he can rebuilt it".

  Not a single of your imagined mainstream "Republican" talking points above was mentioned in the RNC. The DNC, however, was a completely different story.
• gut

  FatHobbit;1268905 wrote:Do you mean radical christians use hatred/fear to gain and maintain power?

  I don't know. Can you give me some names of radical Christians in a position of real leadership/power?
• jmog

  sleeper;1268894 wrote:Going to have to agree with jmog on those concepts. Shocking I know.

  I believe that is the first sign of the apocalypse.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1268962 wrote:Israel is a terribly violent place.
  
  India isn't a Christian majority country to my understanding.
  
  South America is also pretty damned violent, though I don't know that much about their culture/if religion is very much a culprit in any of the violence there.

  I didn't say some of those places weren't violent, I was saying that they aren't religious led terrorist cultivating places for Jews and Christians.
  
  Basically I was disputing your earlier claim that the Muslims in the area that are terrorists are that way because they live in poor countries.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1269069 wrote:I didn't say some of those places weren't violent, I was saying that they aren't religious led terrorist cultivating places for Jews and Christians.
  
  Basically I was disputing your earlier claim that the Muslims in the area that are terrorists are that way because they live in poor countries.

  I'd disagree with Israel. And India has plenty of religious murder and terrorism.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1269034 wrote:What does their last sentence mean, exactly? -
  
  1. "We firmly reject the actions" - Free speech is OK as long as it's Politically Correct? How is it considered free speech then?
  2. "those who abuse the universal right" - Universal they say? Ever been to China? How bout Singapore? On another level, how is free speech abused? Unless someone is yelling, "fire", in a crowded theatre, there is no such thing as "free speech abuse". Now...there is stupid speech, idiotic movies, dumb flag-burning, etc....but those aren't examples of abuse.
  3. "to hurt the religious beliefs of others". Interesting concept. Does the writer mean people that disagree with a religion are actually hurting people's beliefs?

  Seriously? What was meant by it is that you're an asshole if you use your free speech to try to hurt other people. That's it and it's true.
  
  Doesn't make it illegal, doesn't make it so we should prosecute you, and it doesn't mean anyone should be killed over it. But if you use the rights we have in this country to be a bigot you're an asshole who's purposely trampling on the whole point of free speech. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
• I Wear Pants

  
  
  http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI
  
  All of those people clearly hate America. :rolleyes:
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1269072 wrote:I'd disagree with Israel. And India has plenty of religious murder and terrorism.

  Show me recent Jewish terrorist activities from Israel and Christian terrorist activity from India.
  
  Interested in reading those links.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1269164 wrote:Show me recent Jewish terrorist activities from Israel and Christian terrorist activity from India.
  
  Interested in reading those links.

  I didn't say there were Christian terrorists in India ever.
  
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080401350.html
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;1269075 wrote:Seriously? What was meant by it is that you're an asshole if you use your free speech to try to hurt other people. That's it and it's true.
  
  Doesn't make it illegal, doesn't make it so we should prosecute you, and it doesn't mean anyone should be killed over it. But if you use the rights we have in this country to be a bigot you're an asshole who's purposely trampling on the whole point of free speech. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  There are numerous regular posters on the OC that regularly impugn and hate on my beliefs. So be it. I actually gain strength in my beliefs the more they ridicule. But that's just me. I am NOT hurt by their words. Yet, here we have an entire religion of billions of people that get their fweelwings hurt cuz some believe Mohammed isn't quite the be-all end-all prophet. We aren't talking about schoolyard bullies, we're talking about people that genuinely disagree. So...in statist la-la land, words must be monitored, speech vetted, and tolerance demanded, else some terrorists get their AK's in a bunch and continue their murdering ways. Got it.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;1269215 wrote:There are numerous regular posters on the OC that regularly impugn and hate on my beliefs. So be it. I actually gain strength in my beliefs the more they ridicule. But that's just me. I am NOT hurt by their words. Yet, here we have an entire religion of billions of people that get their fweelwings hurt cuz some believe Mohammed isn't quite the be-all end-all prophet. We aren't talking about schoolyard bullies, we're talking about people that genuinely disagree. So...in statist la-la land, words must be monitored, speech vetted, and tolerance demanded, else some terrorists get their AK's in a bunch and continue their murdering ways. Got it.

  You think the entire religion is represented by people like this? That's no more true than that people like Breivik or abortion clinic terrorists or Pat Robertson represent all Christians.
  
  I'm an atheist, I think the Islamic faith via it's followers and teachings results in a great deal of violence and hatred, but I do not see it's violence and hatred as much different than the same that comes from other religions. Like I said before, I would wager Christian nations in the same circumstances as many in the middle east would have similar problems with radical assholes taking their beliefs out of context and to an extent that should never be accepted. We see this in Africa where some places execute gay people under the guise of Christianity. Is that the actual teaching of Christianity? Absolutely not, but neither is killing ambassadors the teaching of Islam.
  
  I nor the President ,who I'm assuming your remarks about "statist la la land" were somewhat directed at, think that we should censor speech like this or make it illegal. However I do retain the right (and I'm actually correct) when I say that sometimes these expressions of free speech are stupid and purposefully endanger the lives of others. Should they? No, but they do and the people saying them often times know it.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I Wear Pants;1269075 wrote:Seriously? What was meant by it is that you're an **** if you use your free speech to try to hurt other people. That's it and it's true.
  
  Doesn't make it illegal, doesn't make it so we should prosecute you, and it doesn't mean anyone should be killed over it. But if you use the rights we have in this country to be a bigot you're an **** who's purposely trampling on the whole point of free speech. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  And who decides what "should" means? You? Me? The U.S. government? Professor Volokh has an excellent post on this:
  
  http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/12/all-of-you-who-harshly-condemn-anti-homosexuality-religious-beliefs-take-note/
  
  What if I say Scientology is a complete horsecrap religion and people that follow it are brainwashed sheep? Does that make me a bigot or does denigrating religion only matter if they can't control themselves if criticized?
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;1269239 wrote:And who decides what "should" means? You? Me? The U.S. government? Professor Volokh has an excellent post on this:
  
  http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/12/all-of-you-who-harshly-condemn-anti-homosexuality-religious-beliefs-take-note/
  
  What if I say Scientology is a complete horsecrap religion and people that follow it are brainwashed sheep? Does that make me a bigot or does denigrating religion only matter if they can't control themselves if criticized?

  Really? You think that dude made a good point?
  
  People who say that someone is not as good as them based upon the color of their skin, or that gay people should be killed, or that women aren't as good as men, etc, etc are bigots and hold ideas and ideals that are right to be held in disdain. If you're going to argue with that, even in the semantics based way of that Professor I don't think you're going to get very far.
  
  If you say that about scientology I'd say you're right. But I'd expand that from scientology and include all religions.
  
  People think that saying they're "offended" means something. The Muslims that do things like this think it does, people in the media (both sides), American Christians think it does (they use this a lot). But the thing is, being offended means absolutely nothing in a discussion. It brings nothing to the table in terms of debate or content.
  
  
  
  I think several of you are mistaking me and others as defending these and other killings. Well that's not at all what I'm doing. Not even a little bit.
• isadore

  Islam is violent from its source, Muhammed practiced ethnic cleansing and genocide.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Really? You think that dude made a good point? "
  
  Well he's only one of the most pre-eminent 1st Amendment scholars alive (originally from Russia), so let me think a moment, uh yes!
  
  It is very odd for the U.S. government to make statements about what constitutes or doesn't constitute proper speech. Perhaps we have different views on what means "religious tolerance", but in my view religious tolerance means we don't burn down churches, we don't interrupt religious ceremonies, etc. That doesn't mean you can't criticize religion. Because it often deserves criticism. Yet to some it appears "religious tolerance" means we can't say anything that could possibly piss off religion (well, just one particular religion) and that goes against fundamental American values.
  
  "People think that saying they're "offended" means something."
  
  But irrational offensiveness and irrational response means even more. There is only one bad actor here and its the animals that stormed our embassies. Turning this into a free or "proper" speech issue only seems to rationalize the rioters' behavior....Life of Brian handles this well.
  
  Matthias: Look, I don't think it should be a sin, just for saying "Jehovah".
  [Everyone gasps]
  Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
  Matthias: Making it worse? How can it be worse? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
  Jewish Official: I'm warning you! If you say "Jehovah" one more time (gets hit with rock) RIGHT! Who did that? Come on, who did it?
  Stoners: She did! She did! (suddenly speaking as men) He! He did! He!
  Jewish Official: Was it you?
  Stoner: Yes.
  Jewish Official: Right...
  Stoner: Well you did say "Jehovah. "
  [Crowd throws rocks at the stoner]
  Jewish Official: STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT RIGHT NOW! STOP IT! All right, no one is to stone _anyone_ until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say, "Jehovah. "
  [Crowd stones the Jewish Official to death]
• Sonofanump

  I Wear Pants;1268859 wrote:Fuck you. I couldn't. I don't appreciate people telling me what I think or believe. If I said I can't tell I can't tell.

  It was a complement that you saw through a veil that I posted.</SPAN></SPAN>
• I Wear Pants

  Sonofanump;1269328 wrote:It was a complement that you saw through a veil that I posted.

  I'm not even wearing a veil!!!!