I didn't want to get into radical christianity and thanks for doing that.

They know that it's wrong. I don't think I'm trying to interrupt it in any form. Islam means peace. You can't interrupt that in any ther form. It's cut and dry.

You're saying that it's wrong (ie you think it's wrong) and now that they know it's wrong. I don't see what you base this off of - especially given the posts in this forum with articles that talk about how they feel they are right and reject any reinterpretation of holy scripts.

If you had told the Taliban they were wrong, you might not have had a tongue. I'm sure the Saudis might consider executing you if you told them they were wrong and the Mullahs in Qum would leave you bloody for it. I on the other hand would just accept that you have a different interpretation than they do and that it's important to get people with non-violent interpretations to completely dominate the violent ones.

-Rudey

I agree with you to a extent but....

Cutting out my tongue or chopping off my head doesn't make it right.

It was wrong for blacks to be held as slave and for one of them to speak up would mean that they would get hunged or killed. Doesn't make it right.


I'm enjoying this debate by the way.

It doesn't make it right to you and I, but it is right to them. Given that they have the power and control over people there, they also can write the laws saying it is right.

The solution is to eliminate these governments and to encourage people who don't consider violence to be acceptable to become the majority.

-Rudey

That is a solution but I can only agree with it if it's the people themselves you stand up first. THEN, I can go with US involvement. It's kinda like goign back in time and changing a event to you liking, you might get a positive result then but on the other hand you might set off a chain of events that could lead to disaster.

If the people are being suppressed so much and are being threatened with death, then there really isn't much opportunity for them to stand up and voice their dissentions with the government. Afghanistan is one of those places that violence and absolute relgious control ruined the people. If it was not for outside involvement, that country would still be under a Taliban government.

While the world hates to see the US get involved in foreign affairs, it's difficult for us not to. Foreign aid is a tough job and it can't just be a blank check and nothing else all the time. I don't think our military needs to be on the offensive, but I do think a good cause derserves our involvement.


RUgreek

Not True at all. Russia overcame these problems. The French Revolution is another one. Haiti when they threw out the French is a example. You can also look at the peaceful resistence of the Indians under Ghandi and to a certian degree Black America's struggles here in the states. Eastern Europe breaking away from communism. Apartheid.

Sooner or later governments who treat their people wrong will fall. The people get tired of it and the saying "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" begins to mean something to the people. I'm sure Saddam would have gotten his sooner or later. How did we know that other Middle Eastern countries weren't tiring of his antics? I felt like Iraq wasn't our business in the first place.

Yea I know it does work without outside influence or involvement, but what's wrong with a little help sometimes? Yea, it's their country and they should be mature enough to solve their own problems. And of course, we are not perfect therefore we shouldn't be telling others what to do. However, some basic things like oppressing women, executing random groups people for crazy religious laws, all these seem like harsh living conditions and need to be stopped immediately.

As for Iraq, that's another topic. Plus the GC lurkers are looking for another reason to bash America for not finding weapons, so I don't want to divert this thread. Radical Islam seems to prey on innocent people and influence the weak. They managed to turn Afghanistan into their personal little playground of destruction. Saving that country was the least we could do.

I'll agree with you on Afghanistan but for different reason. I can't condone any country that hides Bin Laden and tells us that we're hiding a man who is the mastermind of 9/11. That alone was more than enough for us to go and teach the Taliban a lesson.

Radical Islam isn't much different than Non-Islamic groups who are slaughtering muslims in Serbia and the Sudan. But I don't see a military influence in the Sudan. Well not one who goal is to go over and wipe their radical ideals o ut.

How are they comparable? Muslim radicals are using terrorism to kill non-believers and to spread Islam. And that is also what is happening in Sudan. There are Muslim and Arab Northerners who control the government and are massacring those that are not only different but also imposing their government on them. And before you say it, because I know you will, yes, America should also be there. Not only should America be there but so should other countries. The genocide is horific by all counts.

-Rudey

Which leads me to say that we shouldn't talk about "giving liberty to oppressed people of the world" when we're not ready to back that up 100 percent. All that freedom giving "chest-thumping" you heard from our government was only going to open a can of worms that hte US isn't ready to deal with as of yet.

So you're saying only Muslim governments are imposing thier will on their people? But I understand we're only talking about Muslim governments so I'll leave it at that.


So now why are we REALLY in Iraq?

As John Quincy Adams put it: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...t_pol_2003.jpg

The reason is geopolitical. Its that simple.

No I'm not saying only Muslim governments impose their will on their people. In Venezuela, Chavez imposes his will on his people and I bet he's Catholic if anything.

But let me say 2 things:
1) I don't want to talk about Iraq here. There are 50,000 threads on Iraq and the war. If it's in a different context I am game, but I am tired of saying the same things and others saying the exact same things, you know?

2) This also isn't a thread about war solely.

Now that I've said those 2 things...

I do think war is the answer in many places. War is not desirable. I don't pleasure the thought of pain and death, neither ours nor theirs. But I think that it can help spur something.

If we are able to set up democracies like Afghanistan that really do give people a voice then, in time, freedom will prevail. I don't think Afghanistan is heaven but it damn sure is better than it was under the Taliban. And in time, the citizens will not use religion as a crutch and will build their societies.

I think the biggest thing for the world's countries to do is to pursue those who fund terrorism and these schools. Get these damn Saudis to stop funding hateful madrassas. If we can choke the money supply, I think we can stop terrorism.

-Rudey

We have all types of governments doing bad things to their people, that's for sure. I don't want to compare muslim and non-muslim governments, because that's sounding like I disapprove of a muslim government being fair. I think problem is more simple than that.

Radical islamics are hindering the progress of free and democratic governments. They get into power and use the blame game to control the population. It's unfortunate, but most of the people living in these places are so uneducated and brainwashed in religious services that they follow them because they feel like they don't have a choice

But then you have a place like Iran, where the people are not dumb and are pushing for revolution. This is inspiring and does not need a big outside influence to go through. The people are protesting and the government is listening. I think the situation is going to be unique in each country.

Please define radical Islam.

lots of websites discuss it, just google it... Here's one about the report released in December:

Dutch Intelligence: Radical Islam Spreads (AP)
Radical Islam in The Netherlands: A Case Study of a Failed European Policy

Case in point, even if there was peace between Israeli and Palestinians, the hatred of western culture would not disappear. The idea behind radical islam is world domination supposedly. I don't understand it since Islam is a peaceful religion, but this is the type of idealogy trying to be wiped out. I think if the muslim community joins in the fight against these extremists and tries to discourage the spead of this radicalism, then things will be better. I guess it's difficult on all sides to fight a strong force that so many support.


RUgreek

There is no such thing as a peaceful religion. Religion has been taken as an opiate for centuries and interpreted as seen fit. Islam is one of those religions. As I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, those that are terrorists do not believe in peace, are not outliers of Islam, and feel their interpretation is not only the right one but not open to discussion.

-Rudey

I would disagree with this particular statement. Not all who espouse radical Islam want world domination or even want to hurt anybody. Take the case of Tabligh and Darul Arqam from Indonesia. These two organizations is a strict scriptualist who support the establishment of sharia'a. However, they have no connection with any terrorist organizations and according to the Rand corporation, they have low propensity to political violance. Also, they rarely engaged in political affairs, instead wish to be left alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/in...gue.html?8hpib

March 4, 2005
THE HAGUE JOURNAL
2 Dutch Deputies on the Run, From Jihad Death Threats
By MARLISE SIMONS

THE HAGUE - Every evening, plainclothes police officers escort two members of the Dutch Parliament to armored cars and take them to hiding places for the night. One of them, Geert Wilders, has been camping out in a cell in a high-security prison where his life, he said, has become "like a bad B-movie." His colleague, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has grown increasingly miserable sleeping on a military base.

The special treatment would certainly seem warranted: both have received a deluge of death threats since they strongly criticized the behavior of militant Muslim immigrants in the Netherlands.

After two previous political assassinations, Dutch officials are taking the threats seriously, treating the safety of the two lawmakers both as a matter of personal protection and as an issue of national security. Several politicians have said that in the country's present polarized mood, public violence could erupt if either of the two were killed.

But the two legislators themselves have disturbed the officials' plans, choosing to reveal their whereabouts to protest the conditions under which they live. Neither has had a permanent home since November, when a filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, was shot and knifed to death on an Amsterdam street. A 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan, Muhammad Bouyeri, has been charged with the murder.

The decision by Mr. Wilders and Ms. Hirsi Ali to reveal their secret lives, one in a jail cell, the other on a naval base, has raised a question that is troubling many Dutch: is it acceptable for legislators in a Western democracy to be forced to go into hiding, to live like fugitives on the run in their own land?

"Of course this is an outrage," said Abram de Swaan, a prominent sociologist. "It's not bearable. The government must come up with better solutions, like putting them in protected homes. That's the way it happens in other countries."

The NRC Handelsblad, a leading daily newspaper, ran an editorial recently headlined "Unacceptable." A situation in which legislators are "hampered in carrying out their tasks puts democracy in question and makes terror successful," it said, adding that the official bureaucracy evidently "does not know how to deal with the new reality" in which Muslim terrorism may also threaten Dutch politicians.

Officials point out that the government is prosecuting several men for death threats and has adopted tough laws against terrorism suspects, including voiding their Dutch nationality. Late last month the Justice Ministry announced that it planned to expel three Muslim preachers for spreading radical Islamic ideology at a mosque in the city of Eindhoven.

Mr. Wilders's isolation becomes quickly evident on a visit to his closely guarded office in the attic of the Dutch Parliament. In his small, windowless room, far from his colleagues, he can receive visitors only if they are carefully screened and escorted at all times.

He no longer answers his own telephone, but the threats keep showing up in his e-mail, in Internet chat rooms and Web logs. Offering some samples, he switched on his office computer and a short video appeared, featuring his photograph, the sound of gunfire over Arab music and a voice that said, "He is an enemy of Islam and should be beheaded."

"The people who threaten us are walking around free and we are the captives," Mr. Wilders said. The government has told him that he will have to wait until September for a secure home. Until then, he said, he presumably has to continue his spartan life, sleeping in a cell at Camp Zeist, deprived of family and friends. The security detail schedules weekly private meetings with his wife.

Mr. Wilders, a rising right-wing politician, feels an affinity with neoconservatives in Washington and recently visited the United States "to gather ideas." He contends that Islamic dogmas and democracy are incompatible, and has called for a five-year halt to "third world immigration," the closing of radical mosques in the Netherlands and the preventive arrest of terrorist suspects, whom he has labeled "Islamo-fascist thugs."

It was Ms. Hirsi Ali, though, who first decided to go public with her own and Mr. Wilders's hiding places, out of frustration at the government's seeming foot-dragging over finding appropriate housing. Her own proposals were regularly rejected as unsafe, she said.

Her bodyguards, she said, have deposited her on many weeknights on a naval base in Amsterdam, or hustled her off to sleep in different hotels. "They are keeping me alive, but I cannot concentrate on my work," she said. "I need a place where I have my desk, my books, my papers, a home where I can meet with people." In the past year, her handlers have twice taken her secretly to the United States

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born refugee who arrived in the Netherlands in 1992 and became a member of Parliament in 2003, was under police protection even before the murder of Mr. Van Gogh, with whom she had made a short television film that denounced violence against Muslim women. Some Muslims found this deeply offensive.

The Dutch government pressed Ms. Hirsi Ali to go abroad for two months after Mr. Van Gogh was killed and a letter was found on his body threatening her. When she returned to Parliament in January, she was warmly received by her colleagues. But the pressures continue.

The wife of an Islamist militant who is in police custody told a local newspaper that Ms. Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, would be slain by Muslim women. That would make more impact than being punished by a man, the woman said. "The sisters are patient," the woman said. They will wait, "even if it takes 10 years."

Ms. Hirsi Ali concedes she is struggling with the question of how long she can continue in politics, denouncing what she regards as the excesses of Islam. In the past she has shown she is not easily cowed, but she said a deep fatigue was setting in. "I am willing to sacrifice a great deal, but I don't know if I can live like this for a lot longer." She put her inexorable quandary this way, "The real problem is, I cannot stop because that will only serve and stimulate the terrorists."

-Rudey

If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/op...iedman.html?hp

July 8, 2005

If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Yesterday's bombings in downtown London are profoundly disturbing. In part, that is because a bombing in our mother country and closest ally, England, is almost like a bombing in our own country. In part, it's because one assault may have involved a suicide bomber, bringing this terrible jihadist weapon into the heart of a major Western capital. That would be deeply troubling because open societies depend on trust - on trusting that the person sitting next to you on the bus or subway is not wearing dynamite.

The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers take their madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are never again quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday.

But maybe the most important aspect of the London bombings is this: When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. And when that happens, it means Western countries are going to be tempted to crack down even harder on their own Muslim populations.

That, too, is deeply troubling. The more Western societies - particularly the big European societies, which have much larger Muslim populations than America - look on their own Muslims with suspicion, the more internal tensions this creates, and the more alienated their already alienated Muslim youth become. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West.

So this is a critical moment. We must do all we can to limit the civilizational fallout from this bombing. But this is not going to be easy. Why? Because unlike after 9/11, there is no obvious, easy target to retaliate against for bombings like those in London. There are no obvious terrorist headquarters and training camps in Afghanistan that we can hit with cruise missiles. The Al Qaeda threat has metastasized and become franchised. It is no longer vertical, something that we can punch in the face. It is now horizontal, flat and widely distributed, operating through the Internet and tiny cells.

Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists - if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings - or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.

And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village.

What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said Palestinian suicide bombing was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated Palestinian youth. But when Palestinians decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with Israel, those bombings stopped cold. The village said enough was enough.

The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.

Some Muslim leaders have taken up this challenge. This past week in Jordan, King Abdullah II hosted an impressive conference in Amman for moderate Muslim thinkers and clerics who want to take back their faith from those who have tried to hijack it. But this has to go further and wider.

The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.

-Rudey

I don't really know that much about Islam, but I did recently read an article about 'Honor Killings' among Muslims. Is that part of their religion too?

...just curious...

Religion no.... culturally yes...

The punishment of men and women for premaritial intimate contact is 100 lashes, the punishment for adultery for again both men and women is stoning - only to be administered by the religious/state authority (think religious police).... and for people that think this is wrong or barbaric - take a gander at the Bible/Tanakh and imagine if there was a organized religious police here in the west... or that a nations laws were based solely on the Bible/Tanakh.

Whereas the practice of honour killing, ie. the killing of a woman for "dishonour" (men can also be technically be killed as well, but very rarely) is actually contrary to the Sharia as a extra-legal punishment... and is really a hold over from tribal common law/honour system - a system that many cultures besides "Middle Eastern" possess... for example Honour Killings have a long history in the Indian subcontinent, as well as a prehistoric history in Northern Europe.

No.

Link

"terorists...are not outliers of Islam..."

Can you please explain?

If you can read, you can understand.

-Rudey

This was written by Salman Rushdie in the New York Times this weekend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/op...ushdie.html?hp

July 10, 2005
India and Pakistan's Code of Dishonor

By SALMAN RUSHDIE
IN honor-and-shame cultures like those of India and Pakistan, male honor resides in the sexual probity of women, and the "shaming" of women dishonors all men. So it is that five men of Pakistan's powerful Mastoi tribe were disgracefully acquitted of raping a villager named Mukhtar Mai three years ago. Theirs was an "honor rape," intended to punish a relative of Ms. Mukhtar for having been seen with a Matsoi woman. The acquittals have now been suspended by the Pakistan Supreme Court, and there is finally a chance that this courageous woman may gain some measure of redress for her violation.

Pakistan, however, has little to be proud of. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that there were 320 reported rapes in the first nine months of last year, and 350 reported gang rapes in the same period. The number of unreported rapes is believed to be much larger. The victim pressed charges in only one-third of the reported cases, and a mere 39 arrests were made. The use of rape in tribal disputes has become, one might say, normal. And the belief that a raped woman's best recourse is to kill herself remains widespread and deeply ingrained.

For every Mukhtar Mai there are dozens of such suicides. Nor is courage any guarantee of getting justice, as the case of Shazia Khalid shows. Dr. Khalid was raped last year in the province of Baluchistan by security personnel at the hospital where she worked. A Pakistani tribunal failed to convict anyone of the crime.

Dr. Khalid says that she was subsequently "threatened so many times" that she was forced to flee Pakistan. "I was hounded out," she says, expressing dissatisfaction that the government neither brought her attackers to justice nor protected her from the threats that followed.

That is the same government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, that confiscated Mukhtar Mai's passport because it feared she would go abroad and say things that would bring Pakistan into disrepute; and it is the same government that has allied with the West in the war on terrorism, but seems quite prepared to allow a war of sexual terror to be waged against its female citizens.

Now comes even worse news. Whatever Pakistan can do, India, it seems, can trump. The so-called Imrana case, in which a Muslim woman from a village in northern India says she was raped by her father-in-law, has brought forth a ruling from the powerful Islamist seminary Darul-Uloom ordering her to leave her husband because as a result of the rape she has become "haram" (unclean) for him. "It does not matter," a Deobandi cleric has stated, "if it was consensual or forced."

Darul-Uloom, in the village of Deoband 90 miles north of Delhi, is the birthplace of the ultra-conservative Deobandi cult, in whose madrassas the Taliban were trained. It teaches the most fundamentalist, narrow, puritan, rigid, oppressive version of Islam that exists anywhere in the world today. In one fatwa it suggested that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Not only the Taliban but also the assassins of The Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl were followers of Deobandi teachings.

Darul-Uloom's rigid interpretations of Shariah law are notorious, and immensely influential - so much so that the victim, Imrana, a woman under unimaginable pressure, has said she will abide by the seminary's decision in spite of the widespread outcry in India against it. An innocent woman, she will leave her husband because of his father's crime.

Why does a mere seminary have the power to issue such judgments? The answer lies in the strange anomaly that is the Muslim personal law system - a parallel legal system for Indian Muslims, which leaves women like Imrana at the mercy of the mullahs. Such is the historical confusion on this vexed subject that anyone who suggests that a democratic country should have a single, unified legal system is accused of being anti-Muslim and in favor of the hardline Hindu nationalists.

In the 1980's, a divorced woman named Shah Bano was granted "maintenance money" by the Indian Supreme Court. But there is no alimony under Islamic law, so orthodox Indian Islamists like those at Darul-Uloom protested that this ruling infringed the Muslim Personal Law, and they founded the All-India Muslim Law Board to mount protests. The government caved in, passing a bill denying alimony to divorced Muslim women. Ever since Shah Bano, Indian politicians have not dared to challenge the power of Islamist clerical grandees.

In the Imrana case, the All-India Muslim Law Board has unsurprisingly backed the Darul-Uloom decision, though many other Muslim and non-Muslim organizations and individuals have denounced it. Shockingly, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, has also backed the Darul-Uloom fatwa. "The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought," he told reporters in Lucknow. "The religious leaders are all very learned and they understand the Muslim community and its sentiments."

This is a craven statement. The "culture" of rape that exists in India and Pakistan arises from profound social anomalies, its origins lying in the unchanging harshness of a moral code based on the concepts of honor and shame. Thanks to that code's ruthlessness, raped women will go on hanging themselves in the woods and walking into rivers to drown themselves. It will take generations to change that. Meanwhile, the law must do what it can.

In Pakistan, the Supreme Court has taken one small but significant step in the matter of Mukhtar Mai; now it is for the police and politicians to start pursuing rapists instead of hounding their victims. As for India, at the risk of being called a communalist, I must agree that any country that claims to be a modern, secular democracy must secularize and unify its legal system, and take power over women's lives away, once and for all, from medievalist institutions like Darul-Uloom.

-Rudey

If You Really feel that strongly, then why not move to Iserial and fight for them and what you feel?:confused:

Sorry Rudey, but Your posts seem to get more disjointed!:confused:

I'm not from "Iserial". I'm American.

-Rudey

Kewel Dude!;)

Good for you, but you live in a foreign city, Chicago!;)

Still never answer a question do you?:confused:

Oh, I am picking on Rudey, woe is me!

Not for YOU Dude for for the Jaw Bone of The Ass!:D

Oh, She will find it and Fumigate I Hope!:rolleyes:

Muslims attack Europeans and Christians
 

Fundamentalist Muslims object to free speech:
A newspaper in Norway published a cartoon with pictures of Mohammed in them. Countries across Europe like France have also published these cartoons as a right to free speech. This may be similar to the voluminous number of books that are anti-semitic, anti-American, and anti-Christian that can be found in bookstores in place like Egypt. Some may say it's not anywhere nearly as bad as the hate literature found in the Muslim world.

Fundamentalists believe Islam should be the law:
Muslims are angry because their religion doesn't allow for any depictions of Mohammed. They are also angry because one of those cartoons has Mohammed with a bomb around his head - a reference to the (mis)use of Islam as a directive for violence and terrorism.

Fundamentalists attack Europeans and Christians:
As a result, Muslims are rioting and have attacked embassies in their countries as well as threatened Europeans and Christians (and their churches). Today they set fire to the embassies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden in Syria and the government there stood by and refused to protect them. Saudi Arabia has proposed a boycott of goods - a clear violation of the WTO accords which it has signed up for.

-Rudey
--Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Re: Muslims attack Europeans and Christians
 

dude, even nonfundamentalist muslims object to this kind of free speech. It was a blatant attack on the religion. Hate literature anywhere should not be tolerated by any country and should not be re-printed in other countries. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: Re: Muslims attack Europeans and Christians
 

First of all, you may not like the subject, but if it's free speech, it's free speech.

Second of all, what was an attack on religion?

Printing a picture of Mohammed? Muslim rules are not global law no matter how much the fundamentalists want it.

Was it criticizing the huge use of violence in the name of Islam?

Was it the fact that it was done by non-Muslims? Actually it was printed in Jordan as well. Are Muslims attacking Islam? I'm confused.

Really the only attacks are the attacks on free speech, the attacks on Europeans embassies (even of countries that didn't print the images), the threats on Christians, the murder of European artists, the Fatwas issued by Jihadists to kill writers like Salman Rushdie and artists, and the threats against the lives of feminist Muslims in Europe.

Muslims have repeatedly put out television shows, books, newspaper articles that are filled with hate speech, racism, anti-semitism, and bigotry. In Egypt they had a television show dedicated to "The Protocols of Zion" one of the most anti-semitic books ever written, and Egypt was a supposedly moderate Muslim country that receives billions in US aid. Their Foreign Minister had the nerve to the the UN that the Dutch need to pressure their newspapers to not put out things like that. Dutch Muslims have now started to pass out cartoons showing Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler and cartoons denying the existance of the Holocaust. The Arab European League now carries them on its website. That is HATE speech. That is BIGOTRY. Once again Muslims display their sheer anti-semitism. Is this rare? Is this an outlier?? Visit www.memri.org for translated media from the Muslim world and tell me how much hate speech you see on a daily basis.

Many Muslims protested peacefully against the pictures. It is their absolute right to do so. It would have been great if they protested peacefully against the murder of artists and if they protested peacefully against the animals that burn down embassies and bite the hand that feeds them as well. It would have been wonderful if they said "No more racism, anti-semitism, and bigotry and Arab and Muslim media" and it would have been even better if they said "You know what? Jews had nothing to do with this so let's not be anti-semites yet again".

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: Muslims attack Europeans and Christians
 

it's not the fact that they drew our prophet per say...but more about the content of that drawing...i.e. bomb as a turban...get it?

it's offensive..

Wait a minute, _O_. I thought Islam forbade likenesses of the prophet, Period. What I've read on the subject is that it is done to avoid the appearance of idolatry, which is objectionable to Muslims.

Now, I admit that the bomb/turban thing is insult to injury if you are Islamic, but it's not the "main driver" of the offense, if what I read is correct.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Muslims attack Europeans and Christians
 

Actually it is the fact that they drew Mohammed as well. And yes they also drew him with a bomb. How is that offensive? Would a sword have been better? Did Mohammed not kill? Did he not kill in a rather Machiavellian manner? Those are rhetorical questions. Mohammed killed and conquered and slaughtered.

I want you to spell out how the bomb is offensive. Is it not a matter of killing? Do many terrorists not use Islam as justification in their killings and jihads - whether in the bombs they blow up school buildings with or the swords that they use to cut off the heads of innocent civilians?

You have ignored the rest of my post as well. Clearly this is not hate. Even a Jordanian newspaper carried it. Hate is what so many Muslims have practiced across the world - from the hate in the media in Egypt to the hate in the Muslim communities across Europe. Hate is the current anti-semitism in the Hitler cartoons that mock Anne Frank and deny the holocaust. Hopefully the combination of Muslim hate, Iranian nuclear ambitions, and the Muslim desire to eliminate innate human freedoms will push Europe to stop the creation of Eurabia.

When Van gogh was killed a while back you seem to have interjected at the time that his work was offensive to Muslims - as if that offense could justify murder (if it didn't, it had nothing to do with the subject).

I have said in the past that I do not know of a solution to these jihadists - which there are a lot of. I think it would be interesting if a new religion was created called "Peaceful Islam" which rejected violence, hate and terrorism, and saw itself as formally separate from the others. At that point it would remove a lot of the gray area. The problem is much more than the "Wahabists".

-Rudey

I also have to ask (as a side note) why it's forbidden to draw a likeness of Mohammed if he is not a god. In that case wouldn't he be human? And if you can have drawings of the Ayatollah, why not of Mohammed? Someone can PM me that info if they know. Thanks :)

-Rudey

Tell me that non-Muslims in ANY Islamic country would be allowed to storm any embassy for any reason and live to tell about it.

Sorry, but France last fall, Scandinavian countries now. London last summer. It's a frightful last test of Europe's will.

Europe is reaping what they've sown. Acquiescence to a growing Islamic population, and refusing to demand that they assimilate culturally or go back to their primitive pile of sand has brought this about.
No one demands that they change their religion, but if your religion prevents you from assimilating into the culture, then you have to make a choice, and your new country should expect no less.

Don't forget Spain.

They even attacked churches in Lebanon. They threatened Catholic churches in Gaza. Then they put out pictures denying the Holocaust.

The people under attack are non-Muslims and the victims are non-Muslims.

I think the only country that's on their side that they want to attack now is Canada (G-d forbid).

-Rudey

I truly believe that radical Islamism has a goal - the destruction of Christianity - immediately following the eradication of Judaism - and the societies and cultures where the two faiths are practiced today.

Europe seems to be a deer caught in the headlights. Do we let the Islamofascists take them over and then aim their sights at us? Does Europe have the will to take their culture and their continent back?

In regards to terrorism I don't see Europe taking any drastic measures anytime soon. They are treating it like it's a little problem ( like unemployment ). They are in that sense no different than America was before 9/11.