His art? His art was making a film with a Muslim woman about how women are treated in Islam. Get over it.

Really, keep justifying terrorism and saying you don't care, even though it's murder and terrorism.

-Rudey

Do you care? I mean, it seems like you're saying here that you are big into that issue . . . and so I feel like an artistic representation of the negative issues may be ok. What exactly are the problems you have with it, then?




I'll make you a deal: address kitso's (very solid) post in a manner that doesn't avoid the question, and I'll high-five you. ;) :o :p :cool:

unfortunately, terrorist groups in the Netherlands have used this killing as a way to start a wave of terror against innocent Muslims in the Netherlands. There are reports of these terrorist groups planting bombs in mosque and Islamic school.

It is awful and totally inexcusable.

Europe has a problem on its hands with being able to integrate its Muslim population. There is a good balance between freedom and kindness and totally looking the other way. It seems now that the balance is shot.

In case anyone wants to know, the bombing happened at a school where the doors were blown off and damage was done to the inside. The school was operated by Al Fourqaan mosque/center. Al Fourqaan was linked to 2 men who went on to be terrorists in Kashmir and also to 2 of the 9/11 terrorists. More on that can be found here.

-Rudey

RC,

If you read my post again, you will find that I did address his question directly:

His question: my answer: "As for the person who did kill that man, he would be an extremist"

Can I get a high 5?



I'm very big on women's rights. And that issue that I have is the method he used in showing the violations of women's rights that I was offended by. Naked women with the holy scripture written on them in a mosque is really not the way to address such an issue. To me, the word of God (in the Koran) is so revered that another book (non-Koran) can not be placed on top of it. So for him to write it on someone is a turn off, even for a "moderate" muslim. That is my problem, not his "message". To add insult to the injury, its fictional, and not based on any past occurance.




Rudey, keep manipulating my words , but don't think I will call you out on it. I did not justify terrorism, I justified me not liking the dude. what part of that don't you understand?

And is it just me who finds your signiture very very hypocritical? ...


--- just another extremist

No honestly we got your message. You understand why he was killed (justifying terrorism), admit it was terrorism, and say you don't care (you posted to tell us you don't care...something is wrong there).

Oh and by the way did you see the film? You keep attacking the film now huh? You got bored with saying you don't care and now you're on your justifying terrorism in the name of Islam binge huh? OK.

-Rudey

Here is what you also said in your first post:

"This is the first time I'm reading about this. I personally couldn't care less if that dutch filmmaker was murdered or not. There's one thing to make a movie about muslim women being abused, and another to portray a naked women with the Koran written all over her body. ...all in the name of art, I guess."

This statement tacitly implies that he did, in fact, deserve what he got, in your opinion. If you want me to break down connotation vs. denotation here, I will, b/c I realize English isn't your first language, but it is hard for me to believe that this paragraph isn't dismissive of his death as being something he earned through disrespectful action, and that you'll write off his despicable actions as 'all in the name of art, I guess' . . .

Interesting - now we must draw a line in the sand, the man doing the shooting is the extremist . . . how about the organization that he is a part of? What about the community that fosters these organizations? And finally, how about the person who tacitly approves of his death, but not of the killer? Definitely not for me to say, but it's akin to the classic koan . . . how many grains of sand are a pile? one? two?

This inconsistency (that might not be the correct word, perhaps i mean "disconnect") is my problem with your response - you're perfectly willing to call the man an extremist (which he was, I'd say), but when confronted with your own statements you twist them into something they are obviously not. Face up to it, address it directly (as kitso did), and we all move on - otherwise, it's pissing at the rain, and it's a bit strange to watch. I'm not saying you are an extremist - just saying to run with your feelings, even if we don't agree, even if people react harshly, b/c otherwise it's hard to take the thread seriously at all.

And finally - high five!

See here is what I figured. From here on out, I know that I will have my posts dissected into itty bitty pieces. In my first post, I really wasn't thinking about that. My fault, My bad.

I will break it down for you, RC. No more pissing in the rain.

Van Gogh, a controversial artist is murdered. I say I do not care for this man, my day has not changed, because he insulted my religion. You imply that the lunatic who killed him is justified in doing so. What I actually said was a crime is a crime and justice should prevail (I mean justice for that specific country in which the crime i committed). You say I believe his death is justified. I did not in fact make such statement, nor imply, but you can take it as an implication even though you would be wrong if you did. You then go on and on about who is responsible for this death..the community, the terror org, or the entire religion for being so vunerable to manipulation. Well, I say that this conversation is taking a different direction than my first statement. Which has nothing to do with terrorist, and accountability for the murder, or the valuableness of one's life. You can make all the assumptions you can about what I have said previously......but that's all that it will ever be..assumptions. Not convincing enough, even after connatations and detonations.

I understand that hypocrisy runs very deep in GC News and Politics..and that my posts will be subjected to manipulations to fit someone's (perhaps Rudey...or Russ) predesposed prejudices. That's fine. I could not care less.

lol and Thnx for that high five and that very long post.

Right. Keep trying to explain how you justify terrorism and then insult others.

-Rudey
--That's the reason why you're not in a sorority and just hang around Greekchat.

I'm really not being a dick here, buddy, I'm pointing out that your somewhat bizarre initial reactions (and later non sequitur defense) have helped to derail the thread into that different direction you mentioned.

I'm not picking your post apart unnecessarily, unless you'd only like some of our words to count.

Again - I'm not insulting you, or jacking w/ you needlessly, nor do I want to question the valueableness[sic, for laughs] of your input . . . I'm making a point. Do you see it?

Bizarre? I think not. Take a look at the other thread "Arafat Dead".....Where someone goes "Good Riddance"...How come y'all aren't over there picking them apart? Like I said...HYPOCRISY ;)


Hmmmm..something to think about, eh?

Rudey, That was weak...try again.

actually, I am in a sisterhood ;) In fact, two of them.

Look, even if you won't admit that Arafat sponsored extremist terrorism, and even if you won't admit that his ludicrous policies have caused degeneration in the middle east, and even if you won't admit that he is a horrific human being . . .

he stole billions of dollars from the people he was supposed to represent - you CANNOT ARGUE THIS, as it is FACT



Why defend a dude who pillaged your people?? Just for the sake of having a leader? What an indefensible position - don't call me a hypocrite for not defending a horror. Your choice to defend him says a lot about the validity of your viewpoints - not that the question still remained, but now the coffin is sealed.


ETA:

Now the more I read your post, the more ridiculous it gets - saying what you did about a frigging artist is completely different than a semi-analogous viewpoint regarding a known terrorist and a known thief. If you think these are one and the same, I hope you spend a quiet minute or two every day thinking about how little perspective you have.

Grow up, look outside of yourself and your own beliefs and weltanshauung.

lol..you're too funny. Well I thought you, russ and Rudey were jumping all over me for speaking ill of the dead. Yet, you don't give that treatment to everyone else? ...That is the point I'm trying to make here.


And FYI, I am not palestinian...so, what are you talking about?




Edited to Add: How do you know my viewpoints of the middle-east? Just wondering..? And How do you know what I really think of Arafat and his leadership skills...are you basing it on my religious affiliations..?

and you say that everytime you read my posts, it keeps getting ridiculous.....Well let me tell you that feeling is quite mutual.

No we weren't doing it because it was speaking ill of the dead. We were doing it because you were justifying murder and terrorism. Get the point? Arafat was a murderer, a terrorist, and destroyed his people and then died of whatever causes. This man created a film on women's rights in Islam along with a Muslim woman who also is getting the same death threats and was murdered by terrorists. You keep justifying his death and the justification is beyond bullshit when you don't even know what the film was about and no matter what the film was about it's not justification. Get this into your head.

Honestly, concentrate on your imaginary alumni initiation of your internet sorority and stop embarassing yourself.

-Rudey
--You are beyond ridiculous