PDA

View Full Version : What do you guys make of the embassy attacks?



resolve
14th September 12, 05:21 PM
4 Embassies attacked and have an Islamic flag flying over them now. And our President issues an apology...

I say if they want the buildings so badly we destroy them and they can have the rubble and thus forfeit all future economic aid.

Cullion
14th September 12, 05:31 PM
who do you think made the film that started this ?

Feryk
14th September 12, 05:34 PM
A Coptic Christian moron who is affiliated with the same fucker who wanted to burn Qurans in Florida last year.

As for what I make of this...Obama is pulling a Jimmy Carter. He could very well lose the next election if he doesn't do something impressive soon.

resolve
14th September 12, 05:55 PM
The movie is called Innocence of Muslims and was made by "Media for Christ".
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019160068_apusegyptfilmmakerchristiancharity.html

ntgzoE7rU9A

MAiOEV0v2RM

Aside from being hilariously badly written and the lowest production values I've seen for an indie film in a long time... it's caused many many people to die as Muslims have become incensed at seeing Muhammad depicted as a womanizer, pedophile, and "sand pirate"... which if you look at his actual life isn't far from the truth at all.

However, the way the film is so horribly made, that it was only really released to muslim nations with an Arabic voice-over, and the fact that the christian "charity" Media For Christ had raised over $1 milliong to make the film really makes the whole thing stinking suspect to me.

It's like a bunch of people gathered together and were like "hey instead of making something that will appeal to the Muslim mind and help shed the truth about Mohammad let's make something that will deliberately piss them off the most, knowing that they are going to respond hella violently to it."

Hedley LaMarr
14th September 12, 07:56 PM
4 Embassies attacked and have an Islamic flag flying over them now. And our President issues an apology...

I say if they want the buildings so badly we destroy them and they can have the rubble and thus forfeit all future economic aid.
Are you trolling, or are you really just that stupid?



In assessing Romney's remarks and whether the embassy statement was an apology, it's important to understand a few details.
First, the U.S. embassy released its statement at least several hours before protesters stormed the U.S. compound in Cairo -- and well before the attack in Libya took place. So the statement was not made in response to the storming of the Cairo embassy, nor to the killings in Benghazi.
It’s possible, however, that protesters had already amassed at the embassy by the time the statement was released; that’s not clear from the media reports we’ve seen. And there are reports, not backed up by the current embassy Twitter feed, that the embassy did reiterate the original statement via Twitter several hours after the embassy was breached.
Second, Romney’s initial statement on the evening of Sept. 11 calling the administration’s response "disgraceful" was made with knowledge of how the Cairo incident ended, but before the announcement of the deaths in Libya. On the other hand, significant details about both events were available by the time he made his comments on the morning of Sept. 12.
And third, the ABC News report (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-administration-distances-self-from-statement-issued-by-us-embassy-in-cairo/)suggests that even the White House was having jitters about the embassy statement after the fact, saying that it didn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2012/sep/13/did-us-embassy-cairo-make-apology/

(http://www.politifact.com/georgia/article/2012/sep/13/did-us-embassy-cairo-make-apology/)Calling a statement issued prior to the attack by the embassy an "apology" by the Obama administration is just moronic.

Robot Jesus
14th September 12, 08:03 PM
[COLOR=#fff0f5]
Are you trolling, or are you really just that stupid?




It fit his narative, same way Christians claim persecution in the united state.

Hedley LaMarr
14th September 12, 08:05 PM
It fit his narative, same way Christians claim persecution in the united state.
Well it's true they are being persecuted. I personally shout obscenities at churches every Sunday morning. I rotate between denominations. This week, I'm going to call every Methodist I see a "big booty ho."

resolve
14th September 12, 08:58 PM
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6064_10151047815816962_1183364933_n.jpg

resolve
14th September 12, 08:59 PM
Are you trolling, or are you really just that stupid?
[/URL]Calling a statement issued prior to the attack by the embassy an "apology" by the Obama administration is just moronic.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Dafuq are you talking about?

I'm talking about the press releases by Hillary.

Robot Jesus
14th September 12, 09:09 PM
that were released before any attack took place.

before:“We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

after: “I want people around the world to hear me, to all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world,” Obama said. “No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-accused-of-apologizing-for-us-touts-commitment-to-values/

resolve
14th September 12, 10:15 PM
Must not be listening to the same sources.

Robot Jesus
14th September 12, 10:23 PM
What does your source say, and what is it?

resolve
14th September 12, 11:38 PM
I saw a video of Hillary Clinton apologizing for the movie and Americans as a whole shouldn't be held responsible, and then saying that still the violence is uncalled for, then apologizing again.

Hedley LaMarr
15th September 12, 12:06 AM
I saw a video of Hillary Clinton apologizing for the movie and Americans as a whole shouldn't be held responsible, and then saying that still the violence is uncalled for, then apologizing again.
ll5Wg3D4UA4
0ihIZg9yR7M
Here are the two press statements Clinton has made since Tuesday that I am aware of. I did not hear any apology in them. I searched a transcript of the latter for the words "apology" "apologize" "sorry" and "regret" and came up with nothing. Could not find a transcript of the latter but from what I heard I could not hear anything that resembled an apologize, let alone two. Please post the video you watched, or transcribe the parts of either video you believe are an apology.

resolve
15th September 12, 12:23 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/Hillary-Contradicts-Obama-on-Egypt-Apology

Can't find the specific video I watched. But the apologies are in the language. Platitudes on muslim sensitivities and basically saying we're sorry without saying "America is sorry for the video." Don't be so dense. Words between words my man.

Now this whole quibbling is really off track. I don't think it really is about the video. I think it was planned (by whom I don't know but it's just way too... convenient), and the responses to it are just tiptoeing around the issues.

Hedley LaMarr
15th September 12, 12:31 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/Hillary-Contradicts-Obama-on-Egypt-Apology (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/Hillary-Contradicts-Obama-on-Egypt-Apology)

Can't find the video I watched. But the apologies are in the language.
"the apologies are in the language?" If so please point out the language, and don't waste our time with editorial pieces.

Is this really what you call an "apology"?



Instead, Clinton reiterates (https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576) an apology issued earlier today (http://twitchy.com/2012/09/11/unreal-mob-storms-u-s-embassy-in-cairo-embassy-tweets-apologies-for-hurt-muslim-feelings/) by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo--nowdeleted (https://twitter.com/USEmbassyCairo/statuses/245459609878409216?tw_i=245459609878409216&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed)--which said: "We condemn the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims."
"The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others," Clintonsaid (https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717059693080576). "Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation," sheadded (https://twitter.com/StateDept/status/245717209433919488).
However, the White House has distanced itself (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/White-House-Apologizes-for-Egypt-Apology) from such apologies, according to Politico, saying that they were not "cleared by Washington."

How DARE Hillary Clinton claim the US deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of Muslims? And what is this "US was founded on religious tolerance" nonsense!"!!!!!

Fuck you are dense.

Robot Jesus
15th September 12, 12:33 AM
no... I don't think you understood what was said. America can be sorry for the video, AND wand to bomb the crap out of people who would spill blood over it.

a government can do both.

Hedley LaMarr
15th September 12, 12:36 AM
no... I don't think you understood what was said. America can be sorry for the video, AND wand to bomb the crap out of people who would spill blood over it.

a government can do both.

NNOOO IT CAN'T! THAT VILE CLINTON WOMEN WANTS TO OPEN THE GATES TO MUSLIMS AND LET THEM INTO AMERICA! This is all part of Obama's plan to let Muslims into the country so they'll suicide bomb resolve's house after sodomizing him with a Koran!

Robot Jesus
15th September 12, 12:49 AM
I'm curious what you thing resolve.


Also I'm still open to buying a painting.

Harpy
15th September 12, 02:22 AM
America needs to disguise some expendables (Guantanamo/death row/aliens) and execute them on Youtube to appease the rabble. If the moon landing set is available all the better.

Arguing semantics is fun but the target audience isn't listening.

Cullion
15th September 12, 02:35 AM
Muhammad depicted as a womanizer, pedophile, and "sand pirate"... which if you look at his actual life isn't far from the truth at all.

Resolve, can you give an example of Muhammad attacking a city or tribe who had not attacked, embargoed or threatened to attack him first ?

resolve
15th September 12, 04:33 AM
NNOOO IT CAN'T! THAT VILE CLINTON WOMEN WANTS TO OPEN THE GATES TO MUSLIMS AND LET THEM INTO AMERICA! This is all part of Obama's plan to let Muslims into the country so they'll suicide bomb resolve's house after sodomizing him with a Koran!

You've really got some fucked up ideas in your head about people you know very little about.


Resolve, can you give an example of Muhammad attacking a city or tribe who had not attacked, embargoed or threatened to attack him first ?

Let's start with Mecca then.

Meccan civilian merchants and caravans. He also tortured some of them and kidnapped more for ransom money.

Cullion
15th September 12, 05:06 AM
Let's start with Mecca then.

Meccan civilian merchants and caravans. He also tortured some of them and kidnapped more for ransom money.

Your use of the term 'civilian' is disingenous. There was no standing army in that society, merely armed tribesmen. The tribe of Quraysh had violently expelled him from Mecca, refused to let him and the other muslims worship or preach there and threatened those preaching his message to keep silent. Taking prisoners as ransom was absolutely normal practice at the time.

Give an example of a specific person he tortured.

Resolve, has it ever occurred to you that you're being manipulated toward hostility to muslims ?

Hedley LaMarr
15th September 12, 08:08 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/11/Hillary-Contradicts-Obama-on-Egypt-Apology

Can't find the specific video I watched. But the apologies are in the language. Platitudes on muslim sensitivities and basically saying we're sorry without saying "America is sorry for the video." Don't be so dense. Words between words my man.

First off, if you're going to edit your posts after they've already been quoted, at least do it in a way beneficial to your argument. Which leads to my second point: "words between words" is the absolute dumbest argument possible and is really just enabling quote mining http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining But, seeing as you want me to find the "words between the words", I'm going to start doing it to everything you post.


Now this whole quibbling is really off track.

Read: "I don't want to show any sources of my bigotry, I just want to hate brown skins."


I don't think it really is about the video.

Read:"I don't want to admit I'm a racist and am now backpeddling, even though I started this thread to complain about a video where I think Hillary Clinton "apologized" to those filthy brownskins"


I think it was planned (by whom I don't know but it's just way too... convenient), and the responses to it are just tiptoeing around the issues.
Read:"The brownskin half breed Obama is going to let Muslims come in and ravage my asshole, which I've been saving for NoB."

Hedley LaMarr
15th September 12, 08:11 AM
You've really got some fucked up ideas in your head about people you know very little about.

This is pretty ironic considering I'm not the one who's asking people to "read between the lines" to find hidden apologies to Muslims in Hillary Clinton speeches.

resolve
15th September 12, 04:39 PM
This is the bs I hate. You mention anything about Islam and you get "ZOMG racism!" from people like you. Why do you have to be such a left-tard about stuff like this? It's like mentioning that Obama has been steadily sinking the economy into the ground you get called a racist... where does that leap even come from?

You want words between the words. Since you can't be arsed to do it yourself. Let's see how Hillary constructed her speech:

* The US government had no hand in and is not responsible for the video.

* A huge diatribe about how America is for freedom of religion including Islam and how we, quickly corrected to herself, sees a video making fun of Islam as reprehensible and disgusting, how the mocking of a great religion is terrible, and that Americans will basically do anything to protect religious freedoms.

* Correctly calls out the purpose of the video: to denigrate Islam and to provoke rage and in extremely poor taste.

* A condemnation against the violence inspired into the Muslims by the video.

* She states that violence is against the cause of religion and disrespects religion. Then she goes on to instruct Muslims that their own religion is really a religion of peace and praises and thanks Muslims around the world who have also said something against violence.

* Then further condemnation against violence as against the dignity of man that all religions are supposed to hold sacred.

* Then stating that attacking an embassy is attacking the idea that relations can work.

* An explanation of free speech. And how the US does not stop its citizens from making view, no matter how distasteful/reprehensible/etc.

----------------------------------------------------

The other video you posted:

* Libya embassy was attacked. Here's a list of the people that were senselessly killed and why the aggressors should feel bad about it.

* We "liberated" Libya from its dictatorship and saved the city the embassy is located in. The world is a confusing and confounding place! Why do people do these things lol!?!

* This is an attack by a small and savage group, obviously not the government of Libya and of course not the people of Libya as a whole... because there's no reason that would cause the Libyan people to be moved to violence...

* The President of Libya also condemns the violence and will do all he can to rectify the situation.

* She doesn't mention the video because at the time of this speech the White House was not aware of what caused the attacks.


Now. Look at how its phrased and the situation at hand.

-> Embassies are considered that country's "soil". It wasn't just American embassies that were attacked but UK and German embassies as well. So obviously this is a "The western world, but especially America because that's where this particular one came from, with its ideal of freedom of speech must pay for allowing this insult to Islam to get through!" motivation for the muslim world.

-> The Quran itself promotes this kind of reaction.

-> She then says "but we're really not responsible, and hey we're (the US government) really really against this sort of thing, really! Stop hurting our embassies!"

-> Then instructs the Muslims how their religion really is against violence because ALL religions have to be against violence. Of course.


But according to you I see all of this only because I "hate brown people" in some retarded twist of liberal logical leaps.

*rollseyes*

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th September 12, 04:47 PM
racist

resolve
15th September 12, 04:53 PM
Resolve, has it ever occurred to you that you're being manipulated toward hostility to muslims ?

Cullion, has it ever occurred to you that this is your answer to everything? You don't see things the way I do! Hence you are being manipulated in that direction!!!

Everyone here on Sociocide at least knows the basics of how ideas are memetically spread and how the manipulation of ideas/lies/truths is really the big mover and shaker of the powers of the world. Stop patronizing me at least in that sense.

Growing up I knew very little of Islam, at all. Just that it was a desert religion related to Judaism and Christianity started by some prophet claiming all of that was false and to follow Islam instead and then the crusades happened after Islam conquered the Middle East and North Africa and Spain, then Israel was re-founded and thus we have the Muslim world as we know of it today. That all changed later on.

When I was in High School and had a few Muslim students coming to the prayer group I went to at the High School I got curious about the religion and started studying the Quran. What I found therein was disgusting to me. I don't hate Muslims and I really get frustrated when someone throws up the "ZOMG you just hate! hater!" card whenever you want to talk about it. I think they are horribly misguided spiritually... but they're still people just like me. The idea of Islam I think is one that the world can do without, but I don't think having constant wars, framing entire people-groups with propoganda as terrorists because of their adherence to a religion with extremely dangerous views regarding sensitivity and violence (and then later backtracking completely on that and holding blinders on to all the dangerous shit of the Quran and labelling it as a religion of peace), or our constant meddling in the regions these people inhabit because of their natural resources is a good way to encourage ideological conversation and change...


Your use of the term 'civilian' is disingenous. There was no standing army in that society, merely armed tribesmen. The tribe of Quraysh had violently expelled him from Mecca, refused to let him and the other muslims worship or preach there and threatened those preaching his message to keep silent.

As for civilian I meant specifically people that weren't involved in Mohammad's quarrels in the region. Did all those travelling caravans insult Islam too? Or were they just convenient sources of plunder for him to support himself while he rallied enough forces to conquer Mecca? Right. As for someone specific to kidnapping I cannot say as the historians in the Hadith only mentioned that he kidnapped several caravans (I'm assuming they were particularly wealthy) and held them for ransom. The Hadiths DO mention specifically that he COVETED what those merchants had.

Compare that to how christianity spread. Through miracles, martyrdom, and if the people just couldn't stand the message... dust yourself off and move on to the next city to find people that would.

Cullion
15th September 12, 04:54 PM
You haven't answered my questions resolve, and I do not believe you have read the Qu'ran.

Your understanding of the spread of Christianity is horribly flawed.

resolve
15th September 12, 04:57 PM
I've read an English translation of it and I've flipped through translations of the Hadiths several times.

Believe what you want.

Cullion
15th September 12, 05:00 PM
If you've read an English translation of the Qu'ran, then explain what the 'disgusting' part was.

If you want to understand the wars of the Muslims against the Quraysh, I suggest you start here:-

http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/images/martinlings.jpg

resolve
15th September 12, 05:07 PM
The general incoherence of the thing as a whole.

Then the surahs containing calls for violence. People who say it is a religion of peace often say "but jihad is really meant to be waged in the realm of your own soul, not out in the world"... which flies in the face of most of the history of Islam. There are other verses which espouse peaceful aims, but they confoundingly don't match up with the ones on violence.

The absolute hatred of the Jews contained within.

Then the call for jizyah... the crippling tax of anyone who is not a Muslim. This practice is still used in most Muslim countries. Pay money for not agreeing with us! Oh and yeah you're not even really considered a citizen anyways unless you convert!

The call for Islam to take over the world, by any means necessary.

The fact that a Muslim can get away with all sorts of crazy behavior towards their neighbors and under Islamic law they can't be punished because "they are at least Muslims while the people they are hurting are not".

Robot Jesus
15th September 12, 05:10 PM
This is the bs I hate. You mention anything about Islam and you get "ZOMG racism!" from people like you. Why do you have to be such a left-tard about stuff like this? It's like mentioning that Obama has been steadily sinking the economy into the ground you get called a racist... where does that leap even come from?

You want words between the words. Since you can't be arsed to do it yourself. Let's see how Hillary constructed her speech:

* The US government had no hand in and is not responsible for the video.

* A huge diatribe about how America is for freedom of religion including Islam and how we, quickly corrected to herself, sees a video making fun of Islam as reprehensible and disgusting, how the mocking of a great religion is terrible, and that Americans will basically do anything to protect religious freedoms.

* Correctly calls out the purpose of the video: to denigrate Islam and to provoke rage and in extremely poor taste.

* A condemnation against the violence inspired into the Muslims by the video.

* She states that violence is against the cause of religion and disrespects religion. Then she goes on to instruct Muslims that their own religion is really a religion of peace and praises and thanks Muslims around the world who have also said something against violence.

* Then further condemnation against violence as against the dignity of man that all religions are supposed to hold sacred.

* Then stating that attacking an embassy is attacking the idea that relations can work.

* An explanation of free speech. And how the US does not stop its citizens from making view, no matter how distasteful/reprehensible/etc.




all reasonable statements in response to an asshat trying to get muslims angry. what part of that speech did you find objectionable?


----------------------------------------------------

The other video you posted:

* Libya embassy was attacked. Here's a list of the people that were senselessly killed and why the aggressors should feel bad about it.

* We "liberated" Libya from its dictatorship and saved the city the embassy is located in. The world is a confusing and confounding place! Why do people do these things lol!?!

* This is an attack by a small and savage group, obviously not the government of Libya and of course not the people of Libya as a whole... because there's no reason that would cause the Libyan people to be moved to violence...

* The President of Libya also condemns the violence and will do all he can to rectify the situation.

* She doesn't mention the video because at the time of this speech the White House was not aware of what caused the attacks.




all reasonable statements in responce to such an attack. What should have been said instead?


Now. Look at how its phrased and the situation at hand.

-> Embassies are considered that country's "soil". It wasn't just American embassies that were attacked but UK and German embassies as well. So obviously this is a "The western world, but especially America because that's where this particular one came from, with its ideal of freedom of speech must pay for allowing this insult to Islam to get through!" motivation for the muslim world.

-> The Quran itself promotes this kind of reaction.

-> She then says "but we're really not responsible, and hey we're (the US government) really really against this sort of thing, really! Stop hurting our embassies!"

-> Then instructs the Muslims how their religion really is against violence because ALL religions have to be against violence. Of course.


But according to you I see all of this only because I "hate brown people" in some retarded twist of liberal logical leaps.

*rollseyes*

I don't see what any of this has to do with anything., it's not a logical leap to say that you seem to view this as a religion against the west, when that is only one aspect of this.

yes we know that the terrorists are Muslim, you seem to be declaring and then denying that the Muslims are the terrorists. we say you seem to hate brown people, because you seen to be implying that the president should make a speech condemning Islam as a terrorist religion. if that is not the case please elaborate your position.

Hedley LaMarr
15th September 12, 05:25 PM
Even in resolve's childish summary he didn't manage to point out one apology.

resolve
15th September 12, 05:29 PM
I don't see what any of this has to do with anything., it's not a logical leap to say that you seem to view this as a religion against the west, when that is only one aspect of this.

Uh, no? It's not a religion "against the west". It's a religion that by its very nature binds people, not frees them.


yes we know that the terrorists are Muslim,

Terrorists? There's no "terrorists" here. There's only a group of common people in outrage due to someone mocking their worldview and taking it to a murderous extreme.


you seem to be declaring and then denying that the Muslims are the terrorists.

WAT?


we say you seem to hate brown people, because you seen to be implying that the president should make a speech condemning Islam as a terrorist religion. if that is not the case please elaborate your position.

Uh no? Again. I am simply stating that the tone after the attacks is apologetic. Almost like "Oh noes we are so sorry for this video, not responsible, but deeply sorry. Lay off the violence though please."

These people in an outrage (for reasons I hope we can all understand here, I really shouldn't have to explain that much) over what truly is a slap in the face by a "christian" source (not so christian) have gone to murderous extremes and feel ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED BY THEIR RELIGION IN DOING SO. Sure there's going to be people that will say "no no that was wrong of them to do so." But it's honestly not going to change a thing.

The thing is, America now has this extremely dangerous view that they, as part of "western civilization" are this great salvation for all of mankind's ills because they are the forerunner of civilization as a whole... ignoring thousands of years of history and the mentality of the people we are messing with.

Look at the condescending way Hillary explains what Islam is really all about and how these attacks are a disgrace when it's really just the status quo.

I would say we should say "if this is how you treat people who weren't even involved in the creation and distribution of this video then we are simply going to remove our embassies and remove all aid to your countries". Let them forge their own disaster for themselves. AMERICA CANNOT SAVE THESE PEOPLE WITH AMERICANNESS. Our embassies are there for diplomatic reasons. In the countries that have actively tried to stop the attacks I'd say sure, rebuild, re-staff, and keep up the diplomatic mission.

We are paying out the ass to keep these nations afloat, after we incited rebellions in them to overthrow dictatorships (that we set up in quite a few cases), so we can throw our people to the slaughter. All so we can get resources (oil and mineral wealth) all while condescendingly telling people how their religion really is, even flying in the face of reality, and constructing memes that have been infecting western societies as a whole regarding Islam.

Cullion
15th September 12, 05:35 PM
The general incoherence of the thing as a whole.

Then the surahs containing calls for violence. People who say it is a religion of peace often say "but jihad is really meant to be waged in the realm of your own soul, not out in the world"... which flies in the face of most of the history of Islam. There are other verses which espouse peaceful aims, but they confoundingly don't match up with the ones on violence.

The Old and New Testaments are full of violence.



The absolute hatred of the Jews contained within.

Read the book I've pointed you at to understand the context.



Then the call for jizyah... the crippling tax of anyone who is not a Muslim. This practice is still used in most Muslim countries. Pay money for not agreeing with us! Oh and yeah you're not even really considered a citizen anyways unless you convert!

The Jizyah is no more than the Zakhat muslims are obliged to pay. In your country well over 20% of your wealth is stolen by a counterfeiting cartel with connections to the political elite. Most of the population is in permanent debt-slavery to people who don't contribute anything beyond teleprompter speeches and paper tickets they've trained you to accept as money.

Economics is hardly Islam's great failing.



The call for Islam to take over the world, by any means necessary.

It does not call for Islam to take over the world 'by any means necessary'. That's a lie.



The fact that a Muslim can get away with all sorts of crazy behavior towards their neighbors and under Islamic law they can't be punished because "they are at least Muslims while the people they are hurting are not".

That's bullshit.

Harpy
15th September 12, 05:41 PM
Well Sydney had it's protest against the film yesterday. It turned a little ugly, 6 police officers
hurt and I believe 6 arrests. A bit sickening as I was 10 minutes away from the central city location at a uni exam and had thought of going shopping there but decided against it.

They gathered peacefully enough I take it but the 300 (lulz) strong group then tried to enter the US embassy and things started going downhill from there.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/sydney-protesters-call-for-beheadings/story-e6frg6nf-1226474756501

This morning I'm watching the news and see the public faces of the Islamic community (they're cleverly using women to bear the message) condemning the attacks. The way I figure it is that each person there comes from a large family group. Multiply that by 300 and it's a few thousand aggravated people living in our city and humiliating themselves and rubbishing the freedom to live peacefully that we have here.

Screw them all.

Robot Jesus
15th September 12, 05:43 PM
we aren't going to get anywhere with these people by calling them assholes. in many ways these people are children, but calling them out on that and treating them as such only emboldens them and and justifies their behaviours. if we ever want cooler heads to prevail we need to avoid feeding into their own narrative about this.

I don't mean to speak for you, but would you say this

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/09/12/beng3/large.jpeg

is a deception to lul us into a false sense of security?

or is it as I see it as a sign that this is a complicated issue with people on both sides of the fence everywhere.

Robot Jesus
15th September 12, 05:53 PM
also Christianity is responsible for the bloodiest war in human history, glass houses and all that.

resolve
15th September 12, 06:02 PM
I don't mean to speak for you, but would you say this

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/09/12/beng3/large.jpeg

is a deception to lul us into a false sense of security?

or is it as I see it as a sign that this is a complicated issue with people on both sides of the fence everywhere.

No I see that as a child whose parents put him up to holding up a cutesy sign to garner media interest so that the world can see that there are some muslims who disagree with what happened. I'm not saying "muslims are bad people" I'm saying that Islam as a religion encourages and justifies this violence when people so inclined do it.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
15th September 12, 06:05 PM
I agree.

Robot Jesus
15th September 12, 06:24 PM
Christians killed far more in a single war to spread their religion to heathens.

resolve
15th September 12, 06:59 PM
That's bullshit.

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." (Surah 2:190-193)

"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein." (Surah 2:216-217)

"And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" (Surah 8:39)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." (Surah 25:52)

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (Surah 61:9)

From the Hadith (the contemporary chroniclers of the life of and friends of Mohammad)

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal
One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."


For specific sources on the treatment of Dhimmis (non-muslims) see this:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Treatment_of_Dhimmis
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jewarab6.htm


The Pact of Umar was a writ of protection (dhimma) extended by Allah's community to their protégés (dhimmis). In return for the safeguarding of life and property and the right to worship unmolested according to their conscience, the dhimmis had to pay the jizya [poll tax] and the kharaj [land tax]. They were to conduct themselves with the demeanor and comportment befitting a subject population. They were never to strike a Muslim. They were not to carry arms, ride horses, or use normal riding saddles on their mounts. They were not to build new houses of worship nor repair old ones. They were not to hold public religious processions (including funeral processions), nor pray too loudly. Naturally, they were not to proselytize. They had to wear clothing that distinguished them from the Arabs Furthermore, dhimmis were to be restricted from government service. In other words, at least in theory, dhimmis were to be permanent outsiders with no real part in the Muslim Arab civitas Dei (Stillman, 1979, pp. 25-26).

The dhimma set a contractual relationship between Muslims and their non-Muslim minorities. While dhimmis were relegated to an inferior status, they were also afforded some protection as long as they accepted that status. There were rulings at various times throughout the Muslim world stating that Jews and Christians should not be mistreated without justification. In better times, Jews were able to appeal to the authorities for protection against mob violence, and there was an attitude of live and let live toward them. But in worse times, persecution was justified on the argument that Jews or Christians had violated the pact by overstepping their place. Since the minorities had, in effect, broken the contract, Muslims were no longer bound by it. As noted above, in Granada in 1066 the poet Abu Ishaq wrote that since Jews had violated the contract, Muslims were free to attack them without sin, instigating an anti-Jewish riot ("Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them.... They have violated our covenant with them.... Do not tolerate their misdeeds against us"). However, such justification of violence was unusual until the changes in the role of Jews and Christians in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Lewis, 1984, p. 45). More commonly, the effect was not pogroms so much as constant harassment and humiliation.

Cullion
16th September 12, 02:13 AM
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." (Surah 2:190-193)

"Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein." (Surah 2:216-217)

"And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" (Surah 8:39)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)

"Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." (Surah 25:52)

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (Surah 61:9)

From the Hadith (the contemporary chroniclers of the life of and friends of Mohammad)

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal
One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."


For specific sources on the treatment of Dhimmis (non-muslims) see this:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Treatment_of_Dhimmis
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jewarab6.htm

You don't understand context and you don't want to. Your 'specific sources' are not scholarly or unbiased. Using your own methodology I'm now going to show you how you treat non-Christians. I'm not going to ask you what you actually believe, I'm just going to tell you based on quotes from your own holy book that I'm not going to attempt to interpret or allow you to interpret:-

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." -- 2 John 7

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." -- Dt.13:6-10

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord. -- 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

Adouglasmhor
16th September 12, 02:50 AM
Christians killed far more in a single war to spread their religion to heathens.

Seriously - so fucking what?
Do you mean that's OK then?
Do you mean the Muslim criminals who did this have some justification in attacking Embassies of a country where the idiot who made a shit film happened to live or do you mean all western nations embassy staff are Christians so fair game?

What do you mean?


Also did the Crusades cause as many deaths as this guy? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html)

Spade: The Real Snake
16th September 12, 08:10 AM
The little Muzzy faggot crotchspawn misspelled "prophet"

Robot Jesus
16th September 12, 01:37 PM
Seriously - so fucking what?
Do you mean that's OK then?
Do you mean the Muslim criminals who did this have some justification in attacking Embassies of a country where the idiot who made a shit film happened to live or do you mean all western nations embassy staff are Christians so fair game?

What do you mean?


Also did the Crusades cause as many deaths as this guy? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html)

I only mean if you're going to claim moral high ground because your book of desert nomad myths talks about peace more then some book of desert nomad myths you're setting things on pretty shaky foundations.


And I wasn't talking about the crusades. Less musakhan, more soy sauce.

resolve
16th September 12, 03:30 PM
You don't understand context and you don't want to.

You really are ignorant on this matter.

'Context' in the Koran is ridiculous. It's literally a mishmash every surah is completely chaotic, literally just about every verse is like its own contained world (like a book of sayings rather than a complete story), there's no real linear progression of the verses just annotations as to what was written later than the others, and the way Arabic reads many things can be interpreted many ways due to the flexibility of the words. There's a famous story of Mohammad where someone asked him about a verse with a violent context and he goes "yes it can be interpreted that way" and then someone else asked him about it with a different interpretation and he goes "yes it can also be interpreted that way". When asked about why it was so he made the verse in the Koran stating it was sinful to vex the prophet. That's why the Hadiths are important because they are like the chroniclers of Mohammad's life and they show, specifically that he was not a good person at all. The Koran has the sayings and you get the context from the Hadith and history.

Lollius Urbicus
16th September 12, 03:35 PM
Lol at Resolve calling someone else ignorant.

Hedley LaMarr
16th September 12, 03:39 PM
'Context' in the Bible is ridiculous. It's literally a mishmash every book is completely chaotic, literally just about every verse is like its own contained world (like a book of sayings rather than a complete story)
People like you are the reason nukes exist.

resolve
16th September 12, 03:40 PM
We've hit an iceberg but this ship cannot sink! Please proceed to your cabins, shut the door, and we will bring you some cake. Ignore the sounds of buckling steel and the water rising around your ankles - everything is under control...

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/titanicobama-bidentopoworld.jpg


Libyan president just announced that the attacks were planned ahead of time, not just the after effects of mob action.

Hedley LaMarr
16th September 12, 03:43 PM
We've hit an iceberg but this ship cannot sink! Please proceed to your cabins, shut the door, and we will bring you some cake. Ignore the sounds of buckling steel and the water rising around your ankles - everything is under control...

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/titanicobama-bidentopoworld.jpg


Libyan president just announced that the attacks were planned ahead of time, not just the after effects of mob action.
You mean people PLAN terrorist attacks? I'm heading to Church straight away!

Robot Jesus
16th September 12, 03:46 PM
I still don't see a meaningful difference between Christianity and Islam, when taken as a whole.

resolve
16th September 12, 03:47 PM
*Writes some witty remark about the Bible being just like the Koran*

People like you are the reason nukes exist.

Nice try. But you've completely missed the mark. The Bible is a historical narrative and collection of historical records (like the 4 witness gospels of Jesus' life) except for a few books: Psalms - a collection of songs written, Proverbs - a collection of wise sayings most attributed to Solomon, Ecclesiastes - a book of wisdom musings but all related to the same stream of thought (like philosophy sort of) most attribute to Solomon.


Now go read the Koran and try to decipher its structure. It literally is just Mohammad coming out with sayings from his angel Gibreel and responses to questions from his followers in no real order. He'll be talking about what to do with infidels in one verse and the next he'll be talking about what pleases Allah in a righteous follower (absolute and total submission) and in and out and back again.

Hedley LaMarr
16th September 12, 03:48 PM
Nice try. But you've completely missed the mark. The Koran is a narrative except for a few books

Now go read the Bible and try to decipher its structure. It literally is just random Jewish people coming out with sayings from various angels and responses to questions from followers in no real order. They'll be talking about what to do with women who want to go in to the temple during menstruation in one verse and the next he'll be talking about what pleases Yaweh in a righteous follower (absolute and total submission) and in and out and back again.

resolve
16th September 12, 03:50 PM
This just shows you haven't read it at all.

And submission is not God's goal.

Hedley LaMarr
16th September 12, 03:51 PM
I still don't see a meaningful difference between Christianity and Islam, when taken as a whole.
That's not the point! The attacks were PLANNED! Nevermind that this completely undercuts the argument that this is a savage response to American free speech done by filthy anarchic Muslims who believe in a book I believe is marginally less coherent than my own!

Hedley LaMarr
16th September 12, 03:52 PM
This just shows you haven't read it at all.

And submission is not God's goal.
Job 22:21

Robot Jesus
16th September 12, 03:58 PM
Resolve, it's time to put on the daddy pants and tell us what you think should be done about those people.

resolve
16th September 12, 04:10 PM
I already did. They won't allow marines in to defend the embassies and aren't offering their own security forces to help.

Take our people out, demolish the buildings, and gtfo of those countries and remove all foreign aid to them. Now there are some of the countries which are legitimately trying to help the situation. I say help them get things under control and keep diplomatic ties open with them, but wary.

Aphid Jones
16th September 12, 11:32 PM
Resolve,

Muhommad lived in a land dominated by warring tribes of Arabs, including, but not limited to:

Nestorian Christians
Rum/Melkite/Roman Christians
Extremist non-Chalcedonian Christians
Pagans of various stripes
Various neoplatonic and gnostic traditions

Muhommad's clique was, by default, warred against. The arab wars against the Eastern Romans began with the muslims using a dispute with a foederati-esque arab tribe to claim right of retaliation. Whatever your criticism of Muhommad, the notion that he brought war and disunity to the region would be quite silly.

It isn't until Joseph S... Muhommad's successors that you really get full-scale aggro. And even then, because Islam was designed to be a theocracy, things worked out rather smoothly for the conquered peoples.

Christianity, by contrast, was not designed with theocracy in this age in mind, and, as a result, Christian theocracies have never been very stable. Symphonia in Eastern Rome led to martyrs and confessors, Papocaesarism in the Frankish kingdoms led to every manner of absurdity, and Russia ended up churning out 60,000,000 dead Christians from the backlash against tyrannical Czarism in the last century alone.

Oh, and Anabaptism started as a violent revolt movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion) which was pacified by force. So, y'know, so much for Big Pray conspiracies.

Robot Jesus
17th September 12, 12:10 AM
so what do you think is the Islamic long term plan.


And what do you think of this guy? http://imgur.com/7JRO4

Harpy
17th September 12, 02:26 AM
RJ - going back to the embassy storming and the reactions it ilicits, you're correct in that it solves nothing.

I do wonder though what the group would have done in Sydney if they had breached the US
Embassy. Complex issue or cover all statement from the West to attempt to rationalize a terrorist groups' actions? Would the life of another US national have been an acceptable price and what would the US have done if there had been a fatality here? I won't be surprised to hear of bomb threats to US embassies very soon now the zealots have had time to actually plan a response.

The US is in a strait jacket of it's own making. Free speech (or at least hate speech and it's real life cost) needs to be assessed.

Cullion
17th September 12, 03:28 AM
You really are ignorant on this matter.

I've read far more widely on this subject than you. Prepare your anus.



'Context' in the Koran is ridiculous. It's literally a mishmash every surah is completely chaotic, literally just about every verse is like its own contained world (like a book of sayings rather than a complete story), there's no real linear progression of the verses just annotations as to what was written later than the others, and the way Arabic reads many things can be interpreted many ways due to the flexibility of the words.

But we have, Hadith, Sunnah and numerous other historical accounts from the time to put this in context. If we relied purely on the 'word of God' to judge this, we would indeed by confused, but we don't. What you are doing is trying to construct social and historical conclusions from a book you admit not having read completely, without any of the surrounding context, without talking to an actual scholarly proponent of Islamic belief. That's an utterly absurd way to approach this.



There's a famous story of Mohammad where someone asked him about a verse with a violent context and he goes "yes it can be interpreted that way" and then someone else asked him about it with a different interpretation and he goes "yes it can also be interpreted that way". When asked about why it was so he made the verse in the Koran stating it was sinful to vex the prophet. That's why the Hadiths are important because they are like the chroniclers of Mohammad's life and they show, specifically that he was not a good person at all. The Koran has the sayings and you get the context from the Hadith and history.

How many Hadith have you actually read? Do you understand the different frameworks of Islamic jurisprudence by which the validity of Hadith are judged and interpreted ? No, you do not.

I tell you what scares you about muslims; you cannot counter their argument that Jesus Christ is a prophet but not the son of God, and it terrifies you.

resolve
17th September 12, 03:41 AM
I tell you what scares you about muslims; you cannot counter their argument that Jesus Christ is a prophet but not the son of God, and it terrifies you.

Lol? You really are reaching.

Cullion
17th September 12, 06:46 AM
Lol? You really are reaching.

So deconstruct their argument. Go on.

billy sol hurok
17th September 12, 07:20 AM
The US is in a strait jacket of it's own making. Free speech (or at least hate speech and it's real life cost) needs to be assessed.

I don't have any particular sympathy for the Arab weasel who made this shit-stirring movie and, in typical fashion, tried to pin it on the Jews.

However, we have this thing called a Constitution. It has thingies called Amendments. And you know what the very first one says? No, nothing about strait jackets . . . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Text)
(http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150781/)
Doubtless our prez -- he taught Constitutional law, you know! -- is making a very measured "assessment," beginning with a bit of the old Surprise Visit. (http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150781/)

Cullion
17th September 12, 07:32 AM
things might have been different if you hadn't spent the last half-century invading and supporting violent puppet dictators all over the muslim world.

billy sol hurok
17th September 12, 08:11 AM
Cuz then blasphemy would have been okie-doke with the "muslim world"?

Cullion
17th September 12, 08:22 AM
Cuz then blasphemy would have been okie-doke with the "muslim world"?

They might not have been paying as much attention to the American media. They might not have already been on a hair-trigger. Many of these people have good reasons to dislike America and the UK. We're the people who arm the saudi royal family and drone-strike weddings, remember ?

billy sol hurok
17th September 12, 08:40 AM
Right.

Just like those icky Danes, with their arming and the dronestriking and all.

Cullion
17th September 12, 08:54 AM
Right.

Just like those icky Danes, with their arming and the dronestriking and all.

Denmark sent troops to occupy Iraq & Afghanistan alongside us. I guess you just didn't know that.

billy sol hurok
17th September 12, 09:31 AM
Denmark sent troops to occupy Iraq & Afghanistan alongside us. I guess you just didn't know that.

Oh right; I forgot.

That controversy was delivered to them via drone, not via the Ummah Outrage Grievance Tour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Danish_Imams_ tour_the_Middle_East.2C_publicising_the_issue_.28D ecember_2005.29) launched by a couple immigrant Danish imams.

Wait! No, it was the Jooz again! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Alleged_Zioni st_agenda)

OZZ
17th September 12, 09:36 AM
Denmark sent troops to occupy Iraq & Afghanistan alongside us. I guess you just didn't know that.

How many troops did they send ? Did they hit double-digits ?

Cullion
17th September 12, 09:53 AM
Hundreds. And vehicles.

Cullion
17th September 12, 09:54 AM
Oh right; I forgot.

That controversy was delivered to them via drone, not via the Ummah Outrage Grievance Tour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Danish_Imams_ tour_the_Middle_East.2C_publicising_the_issue_.28D ecember_2005.29) launched by a couple immigrant Danish imams.

Wait! No, it was the Jooz again! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Alleged_Zioni st_agenda)

Oh wait, you're right; People aren't more likely to get angry at you if you invade where they live and kill some of their family and neighbours.

You don't really believe this do you ?

OZZ
17th September 12, 09:57 AM
This is what I like about the Royals:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/uk-military-says-no-plan-cut-short-prince-161003306.html

You would never see a US president's son fighting on the front lines.

billy sol hurok
17th September 12, 10:02 AM
Unless mebbe he shows the world his ass?

Feryk
17th September 12, 11:13 AM
Harry can flash his ass all he wants to. The guy is a soldier and wants to fight for his country. If he wants to chase some tail in Vegas, let him.

billy sol hurok
17th September 12, 11:48 AM
Hell, you don't see me trying to stop him. It beats his swastika shtick, anyhow.

Now, what's up with them royal boobs? As in: No thread yet?

Hedley LaMarr
17th September 12, 12:26 PM
I respect Prince Harry's penchant for partying. He fights hard, he plays hard.

Hedley LaMarr
17th September 12, 12:33 PM
I respect Prince Harry's penchant for partying. He fights hard, he plays hard, he makes me hard.

You two? Call me old fashioned, but I think there's nothing more erotic than a royal warrior casanova.

OZZ
17th September 12, 12:48 PM
The real asshole in that whole Vegas fiasco was the chick who took the photos and sold them to the media.

Hedley LaMarr
17th September 12, 12:49 PM
The real asshole in that whole Vegas fiasco was the chick who took the photos and sold them to the media and didn't have the common courtesy of giving the Prince a tug job.

Spade: The Real Snake
17th September 12, 12:52 PM
Yes
Ethics are strong in Vegas
Especially amongst the poolbar crowd
Even moreso when celebrity and money intersect

Cullion
18th September 12, 07:26 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120918/DA1BTG300.html

Spade: The Real Snake
18th September 12, 07:38 AM
'"Maybe he was handled the wrong way"
indeed

Feryk
18th September 12, 12:28 PM
So are we done pushing resolve's stool in?

He's a moderate Christian and yes, he is biased. He's not Westboro Baptist biased, but he has the bias reflected by the sources he has access to.

And no, he is not a religious studies scholar, though he is trying.

Personally, I hate fundies of any stripe. They preach hate and intolerance under a guise of divine tolerance and understanding.

Al-Qaeda and whoever else did the organizing for this series of events hit the goddamn lottery with this movie, which the news said was made by a Coptic Christian.

However, the genie is now out of the bottle, and it's pretty obvious that a policy of appeasement will not ever be sufficient in that region. I believe this only underscores the need for energy independence for the US and other western nations.

After that is accomplished, cut all ties, AFAIC.

Cullion
18th September 12, 12:36 PM
I still don't understand why people bring up 'energy independence' every time muslims get angry with countries that keep invading them. The answer is to just stop invading them and buy their oil. I can promise you that they really want to sell that oil.

Robot Jesus
18th September 12, 02:19 PM
The spread of Wahhabi Islam is largely funded by Saudi oil wealth, if the car as we know it disappeared overnight that funding would dry up. What that would mean in the long run is complicated, but wahhabism never struck me as a good thing.


Still it's a bit silly to think that energy independence is something that is achievable.

Feryk
18th September 12, 04:21 PM
Energy independence is a long term goal. It is acheiveable, if you consider that we don't need to buy THAT oil. Brazil has accomplished this already.

It will require action on many fronts: exploiting our own reserves and resources, increased use of alternative fuels (nat gas, solar, wind, etc), and serious technology upgrades (use less, produce more, lose energy to heat, etc.).

It can be done. It should be this generation's equivalent of going to the moon.

This is not to say that the Middle Eastern states will suffer. They'll just sell their oil to the Chinese.

They can deal with all the political fallout.

Feryk
18th September 12, 04:32 PM
I still don't understand why people bring up 'energy independence' every time muslims get angry with countries that keep invading them. The answer is to just stop invading them and buy their oil. I can promise you that they really want to sell that oil.

I'm sorry, did we invade Libya? Oh, perhaps you mean Egypt? No, it must've been in Indonesia! No, wait...

Or are you saying 'they' are a cohesive whole, no matter where in the world they happen to be?

The Iraqi people were under the thumb of a ruthless mass murderer of epic proportions. Since his capture, they've used their newfound 'freedom' to engage in sectarian civil war. True, you could blame the US for that -- and their reasons for going in were circumspect at best.

But they aren't the ones engaging in Shia vs. Sunni terrorism, are they?

Perhaps the Taliban really are merciful and polite to their own people. Let's ask the women of Afghanistan, shall we?

The reason people bring up 'energy independence' is because these nations have what is now a deep seated, long standing hatred of the West - whether it's rooted in fact or not. It would be easier and better to not have to deal with them at all.


As it is now, not going to happen. Too many vested interests on both sides.

Cullion
18th September 12, 04:51 PM
I'm sorry, did we invade Libya? Oh, perhaps you mean Egypt? No, it must've been in Indonesia! No, wait...

Or are you saying 'they' are a cohesive whole, no matter where in the world they happen to be?

Do you understand the concept of Ummah ? Do people sympathise with co-religionists or people of the same ethnic background in other parts of the world? Does US politics feature substantial ethnic lobbies for other groups like Irish-Americans, Jews, Latino Americans ?

Why yes, that's actually a totally commonplace feature of real life. People empathise with co-religionists, and people with shared ancestry across borders *all the time*.

Aside from which, your history is a little off. Did we arm a brutal dictatorship in Indonesia? Egypt? why yes we did.



The Iraqi people were under the thumb of a ruthless mass murderer of epic proportions. Since his capture, they've used their newfound 'freedom' to engage in sectarian civil war. True, you could blame the US for that -- and their reasons for going in were circumspect at best.

Are you really green and TV-hypnotised enough to believe that any people, no matter their living conditions, tend to enjoy having their domestic problems solved by huge numbers of armed foreigners who don't speak the language shooting the place up ?

I don't think you are. I think you realised early on that you went down a rheotorical blind ally with this, but you're not sure how to extract yourself.



The reason people bring up 'energy independence' is because these nations have what is now a deep seated, long standing hatred of the West - whether it's rooted in fact or not. It would be easier and better to not have to deal with them at all.

No it wouldn't. It would be easier and better to just fucking buy their oil without constantly letting our own oil companies try and seize control of their industry under the pretence that we're trying to solve their domestic social problems. What we're doing now just makes it more expensive and gets thousands of our own people killed. Refusing to trade with them doesn't make any sense either.

Robot Jesus
18th September 12, 05:16 PM
also if we just stopped buying their oil, other people would, to little net effect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Brazil's energy independence just a giant pork project that costs the Brazilian economy millions and in the end is just a make work project? Instead of just buying oil they devote a significant portion of their economy to production of ethanol which just means energy prices are higher for everyone and a few people have jobs they wouldn't have had otherwise?



Energy independence will come with cold fusion.

billy sol hurok
18th September 12, 05:28 PM
No, Brazil hit paydirt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lula_oil_field) a few years ago.

Robot Jesus
18th September 12, 05:29 PM
never mind.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
18th September 12, 06:37 PM
Energy independence will come with cold fusion.

No it will come when we efficiently harness the power of the MASSIVE fusion reactor we orbiting.

Robot Jesus
18th September 12, 07:12 PM
I would hope we have a superior energy source by the time building a Dyson sphere is viable.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
18th September 12, 08:33 PM
Doesnt get more superior than a fucking massive fusion reactor floating in space!!!!!!!!!!

OZZ
19th September 12, 09:04 AM
It would be easier and better to just fucking buy their oil without constantly letting our own oil companies try and seize control of their industry under the pretence that we're trying to solve their domestic social problems. What we're doing now just makes it more expensive and gets thousands of our own people killed. Refusing to trade with them doesn't make any sense either.

I agree with you, but the match has been lit.
Extremists elements have taken hold and America, along with other Western nations, are viewed as enemies.
I think if you pulled out all the troops tomorrow, there would still be acts of terrorism directed towards the USA and probably GB as well.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th September 12, 10:08 AM
and Canucklestan.

Feryk
19th September 12, 02:20 PM
Do you understand the concept of Ummah ?

Actually, no I didn't until I googled it just now. So, does that mean that the West's foreign policy should be directed at dealing with Islamic nations as a whole? Seems like it wouldn't work very well, but I'm interested on what your take is on this.


Do people sympathise with co-religionists or people of the same ethnic background in other parts of the world? Does US politics feature substantial ethnic lobbies for other groups like Irish-Americans, Jews, Latino Americans ?

Why yes, that's actually a totally commonplace feature of real life. People empathise with co-religionists, and people with shared ancestry across borders *all the time*.

Perhaps it comes down to a matter of degree. Sympathy, I can understand that. Hell, a condemnation could be in order. Fuck, even a demonstration if your people are really pissed. But sacking the embassy, killing people who had nothing to do with it? That's a mob mentality - not a lobby group.


Aside from which, your history is a little off. Did we arm a brutal dictatorship in Indonesia? Egypt? why yes we did.

Yes, we did. The Suharto/Sukarno debacle in Indonesia is over - and has been for a while now. Did the US support Mubarak? Or did they just deal with the guy who seized power? I honestly do not know the answer to this question. I know they backed Sadat, but afterwards?



Are you really green and TV-hypnotised enough to believe that any people, no matter their living conditions, tend to enjoy having their domestic problems solved by huge numbers of armed foreigners who don't speak the language shooting the place up ?

I don't think you are. I think you realised early on that you went down a rheotorical blind ally with this, but you're not sure how to extract yourself.

No, I am not one of those who believe that the Iraqi people loved the American soldiers. However, I believe that Iraqis in general are worried as hell about the future of their country - because they have even less faith in their own people. I would wager that anyone with enough connections/money/brains is getting the hell out right now.

The 'moderate' peaceful Muslims that we hear about all the time are supposed to be the majority, and the fundamentalists, terrorists, etc. are the minority. So at what point does the majority stop tolerating this bullshit and deal with it themselves? I would argue that they lack the organization or the inclination to do so. Which leaves 'Ummah' in the hands of the radicals.

You are linking decades of past history to the current demonstrations. I was not. What I see is thousands of people in disparate countries demonstrating, burning, killing, etc. because an idiot made a film that insults their faith. And yes, I think it's an unreasonable response.




No it wouldn't. It would be easier and better to just fucking buy their oil without constantly letting our own oil companies try and seize control of their industry under the pretence that we're trying to solve their domestic social problems. What we're doing now just makes it more expensive and gets thousands of our own people killed. Refusing to trade with them doesn't make any sense either.

Economic colonization for the US SHOULD have died out in the sixties. I did not and do not support foreign policy dictated by Halliburton. My point is that we should be past this arguement, and move on. I absolutely agree that messing in these countries to secure oil revenues/rights is stupid.

I also believe that with a rising Asian economy, that given a choice, many of the oil producing nations of the Middle East would prefer to deal with Russia/China. This is why I believe that the next decades of US domestic policy should be about maximizing domestic supply, and creating efficiencies as much as possible. I'm not saying ban imports from the middle east, I'm saying create options - because they have a new set of options available to them, and they will probably use them to some extent.

Feryk
19th September 12, 02:22 PM
I would hope we have a superior energy source by the time building a Dyson sphere is viable.

This will not happen during any lifetime that matters to you.

Cullion
19th September 12, 02:50 PM
I guess you missed the link I posted about a crowd of libyans attempting to rescue the US ambassador from the burning embassy.

Feryk
19th September 12, 04:27 PM
I guess you missed the link I posted about a crowd of libyans attempting to rescue the US ambassador from the burning embassy.

I missed the link, but saw the story. And good for them, really.

But it's a little to little, you know? If they really are the 90% of the populace, then at SOME point, they need to organize and tell the radicals to cut that shit out.

Feryk
19th September 12, 04:34 PM
Also, you didn't say if the West's foreign policy should be directed at Ummah as a whole, or individual nation states? You have made more of a study of this, so I'm actually interested in your opinion on this.

Do you honestly think that if the US pulled out of the area entirely (and abandoned Israel in the process) that Ummah would then settle down? How long would it take?

Do you believe they would continue to sell oil to the US?

OZZ
19th September 12, 04:35 PM
and Canucklestan.

No...its more strategic for them to send hordes of sleepers here, have children and collect welfare , take advantage of our social programs, get a small business loan from the government etc. and send the money home to fund terrorist activities.
That's how they get us.

Feryk
19th September 12, 04:39 PM
Pretty much. Their numbers here are growing quickly. There has already been a few attempts to institute Sharia law principles.

Biggest thing we have going for us is that their lobby group will run afoul of the Native lobby group and the Francophone rights people pretty damn quickly. They can all fight it out.

Spade: The Real Snake
19th September 12, 04:50 PM
No...its more strategic for them to send hordes of sleepers here, have children and collect welfare , take advantage of our social programs, get a small business loan from the government etc. and send the money home to fund terrorist activities.
That's how they get us.
That's right.
YOU people don't have guns and are free of shootings.
'cept those pesky American guns that seem to keep finding their way into the hands of the peaceful Canucklestanian citizens, poisoned by the culture of American Warmongering and Violent InforTainment.

I guess you missed the link I posted about a crowd of libyans attempting to rescue the US ambassador from the burning embassy.
Honestly when I read that story, it sounded like complete and utter bullshit.

Harpy
19th September 12, 11:05 PM
'Rescuing' meaning taking him prisoner or getting exclusive rights to lynch him probably.

So far in Sydney we've had protesters carrying signs reading "behead all those who insult Islam/the prophet". There was even a shining example of motherhood who let her 4 year old carry such a sign, happily being snapped by photographers. A few days after the weekend riot where police were attacked, at a conference titled 'Islam Rises', an 8-year old girl gave a speech about her love for jihad. Not 'war' but of the spiritual connotation of the word. Really? These are the children migrants are raising in a country that has sheltered them, provided aid and refuge and freedom to practice their religion?

The community has subtly shifted and distanced themselves from people who look different. I'm actually sadddened because I notice women and school girls who wear burqas or headscarves look uncomfortable as public transportation routes leads to daily intersections with a disgruntled public and a very obvious shunning. Let's hope cool heads prevail.

billy sol hurok
20th September 12, 09:32 AM
OMG Brit mocks Native First Peoples, in newly "discovered" obscure yootoobz:

IyMI9qDAbbo

When Elizabeth Warren (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-admits-she-told-employers-of-her-native-american-heritage/) hears of this, there'll be hell to pay!

za01QWLXisQ

Feryk
20th September 12, 11:42 AM
Cool heads left the building awhile ago, Lily.

Cullion
20th September 12, 02:49 PM
Honestly when I read that story, it sounded like complete and utter bullshit.

Why don't you want to believe the story ?

Robot Jesus
20th September 12, 02:55 PM
because it's easier to develop an opinion on certain issues if you assume people are homogeneous.

Cullion
20th September 12, 03:30 PM
http://www.tagroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Photos-Of-Libyans-Apologizing-To-Americans-Over-Embassy-Attack-6.jpg

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=libyans+apologising&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1920&bih=740&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=xXxbUMPRD-PU0QWU34HgAw

Spade: The Real Snake
20th September 12, 03:33 PM
Why don't you want to believe the story ?
Because there is no reliable first-hand account of the circumstances, with the exception of those whom would stand to benefit from controlling the narrative.

The White House and State Department has been vehemently denying it was a "Terror Attack" and only now are admitting based on a senior official's titling it as one.

With the Secretary of State apologizing and shrilling "WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT VIDEO!!!!!!" should I REALLY believe a, in my opinion, poorly presented article that the very same people whom stormed the embassy were the same ones whom "rescued" the diplomat?


because it's easier to develop an opinion on certain issues if you assume people are homogeneous.
Much like you with Republicans.

Spade: The Real Snake
20th September 12, 03:34 PM
Thanks to that link I see a grand total of like THREE different signs.

There were likely more scarves and banners at the towelhead soccer bombing.

Cullion
20th September 12, 03:40 PM
Because there is no reliable first-hand account of the circumstances, with the exception of those whom would stand to benefit from controlling the narrative.

Who are they? What are their motives ? And why do you believe the other first-hand accounts ?

Spade: The Real Snake
20th September 12, 04:09 PM
Who are they?
Presumed Perpetrators or Those Stated As Such
Media Journalists
Government


And why do you believe the other first-hand accounts ?
I don't believe ALL other first-hand accounts on all subjects, all the time.
This one is just disbelieve-able.

Adouglasmhor
20th September 12, 05:02 PM
OMG Brit mocks Native First Peoples, in newly "discovered" obscure yootoobz:

IyMI9qDAbbo

When Elizabeth Warren (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/elizabeth-warren-admits-she-told-employers-of-her-native-american-heritage/) hears of this, there'll be hell to pay!

za01QWLXisQ

Cliff is an Indian, he was born in Lucknow.

Robot Jesus
20th September 12, 05:49 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?60123-John-McCain-appreciation-thread

I also like Pat Buchanan, though I disagree with much of what he says; and he's an independent Last I heard.





Salman Rushdie made an interesting point I hadn't considered before. in many of these countries the governments have great control over the media, many people living there might not realize that stuff gets released without an official stamp from the American department of information purity. Not sure if that's the case, but if it is then pointing out that the government had nothing to do with the film would be an important point to make.

also

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-protests-idUSBRE88J0VU20120920

Cullion
21st September 12, 07:43 AM
Presumed Perpetrators or Those Stated As Such

Why would the perpetrators imply that they didn't represent ordinary libyans by claiming such had tried to rescue the ambassador ?



Media Journalists
Government

Who and why ?



I don't believe ALL other first-hand accounts on all subjects, all the time.
This one is just disbelieve-able.

Why ? What's the motive ? Who, specifically, is lying ?

Spade: The Real Snake
21st September 12, 08:08 AM
Why would the perpetrators imply that they didn't represent ordinary libyans by claiming such had tried to rescue the ambassador ?





Who and why ?

Why would they deny it was a terror attack for the past week, despite having warnings of a terror attack, in Libya, on 9/11, in retaliation for the death of a Libyan Al-Queda leader in Pakistan? Perhaps because of the constant narrative by this administration regarding Islam. The apperant failure of his "Arab Spring" backing.


Why ? What's the motive ? Who, specifically, is lying ?
Why?
Why are we spending $100K on running fucking TV commercials in Pakistan about this fucking YouTube video.

The media has and is backing Obama, it really isn't a surprise. If this is viewed as a failure of his administration, his State Department failing to provide adequate security to a diplomat on the anniversary of 9/11 despite receiving warnings.

Cullion
21st September 12, 08:28 AM
Why would they deny it was a terror attack for the past week

What the Obama administration says or does about this isn't the whole story. It's quite possible for Obama to be meally-mouthed about attacks whilst it's still true that large numbers of muslims don't actually support what happened.

Have you ever wondered about the arab spring events and why they received such unconditional support from western mainstream media ? That wasn't that long ago. Why did western administrations support the overthrow of all of those governments? was it just carelessness ?

Somebody is trying to whip up tension between us and the islamic world, and I don't believe the actions of the violent islamists involved actually represent the majority of their population.

OZZ
21st September 12, 09:15 AM
I don't believe the actions of the violent islamists involved actually represent the majority of their population.

Maybe you should go to one those countries and find out.

Spade: The Real Snake
21st September 12, 10:33 AM
What the Obama administration says or does about this isn't the whole story.
Perhaps. However it is, for all intents, the whole reported story.



It's quite possible for Obama to be meally-mouthed about attacks whilst it's still true that large numbers of muslims don't actually support what happened.
It is his administration not wanting to take the responsibility for what happened. I can honestly say I cannot recall a US ambassador being killed during my lifetime. It may have happened, but I don't recall it.


Have you ever wondered about the arab spring events and why they received such unconditional support from western mainstream media ? That wasn't that long ago. Why did western administrations support the overthrow of all of those governments? was it just carelessness ?
Not really, because for as long as I can remember, every administration wanted to be "The One" whom brokered some measure of peace or installed some manner of Democracy to the Middle East. Be it by talk or by force.




Somebody is trying to whip up tension between us and the islamic world, and I don't believe the actions of the violent islamists involved actually represent the majority of their population.
Yet the "peaceable ones" continue to elect to power or acquiesce to the seizure of power by the violent islamists.

Feryk
21st September 12, 03:12 PM
What the Obama administration says or does about this isn't the whole story. It's quite possible for Obama to be meally-mouthed about attacks whilst it's still true that large numbers of muslims don't actually support what happened.

Have you ever wondered about the arab spring events and why they received such unconditional support from western mainstream media ? That wasn't that long ago. Why did western administrations support the overthrow of all of those governments? was it just carelessness ?

Somebody is trying to whip up tension between us and the islamic world, and I don't believe the actions of the violent islamists involved actually represent the majority of their population.

All of this can be true, but it still doesn't explain why the rest of the 'islamic world' is allowing it.

Today, Turkey convicted 320 members of it's own military regarding a conspiracy to overthrow their government. My understanding is that the people in question were islamic fundamentalists. We need more of this kind of action by the governments in question.

Cullion
22nd September 12, 03:00 AM
We just supported coups by Islamist movements across the muslim world. We have a history of doing this and then pretending to be surprised by the results. The people who live in these countries by and large aren't monsters.

You all need to read this book

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIHZPqEJbEm61KHd88ojbPolt26RYFN 1dj1JoEILqyqfBd1g2kGBWnD9_s

And stop being surprised that our governments repeatedly help anti-democratic and extreme islamist movements come to power without apparently learning from the experience.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
22nd September 12, 10:56 AM
1. Early estimates put participation in anti-film protests at between 0.001 (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129168313878423.html) and 0.007% (http://news.sky.com/story/986078/prophet-film-protests-a-stormy-week-ahead) of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims – a tiny fraction of those who marched for democracy in the Arab spring.

2. The vast majority of protesters have been peaceful. The breaches of foreign embassies were almost all organised or fuelled by elements of the Salafist movement (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138129/william-mccants/the-sources-of-salafi-conduct), a radical Islamist group that is most concerned with undermining more popular moderate Islamist groups.

3. Top Libyan and US officials are divided (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/was-the-attack-on-the-libya-consulate-planned-or-not/2012/09/16/6f1136be-0042-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html) over whether the killing of the US ambassador to Libya was likely pre-planned to coincide with 9/11, and therefore not connected to the film.

4. Apart from attacks by radical militant groups in Libya and Afghanistan, a survey of news reports on 20 September suggested that actual protesters had killed a total of zero people. The deaths cited by media were largely protesters killed by police.

5. Pretty much every major leader, Muslim and western, has condemned the film, and pretty much every leader, Muslim and western, has condemned any violence that might be committed in response.

6. The pope visited Lebanon at the height of the tension, and Hezbollah leaders attended his sermon (http://news.kuwaittimes.net/2012/09/16/be-peacemakers-in-me-pope-tells-christians-hezbollah-politicians-attend-mass-at-seafront/), refrained from protesting the film until he left, and called for religious tolerance. Yes, this happened.

7. After the attack in Benghazi, ordinary people turned out on the streets in Benghazi and Tripoli with signs (https://en.avaaz.org/755/not-in-our-name-libyans-reject-terror), many of them in English, apologising and saying the violence did not represent them or their religion.

A nice piece from Avaaz about those blood crazed Musllim hordes. (http://en.avaaz.org/783/muslim-rage-protests-newsweek-salafists)

Cullion
23rd September 12, 02:11 PM
One of the many conspiracy theories that circulate in the muslim world is that ultra-austere wahabi/salafi Islam is somehow a creation or tool of British Intelligence designed to keep the muslim world fragmented by providing a forceful cadre who constantly cause trouble by accusing other muslims of not being 'real muslims', pitting sunni against shia, trying to demonise moderate and reasonable sufis as being heretics etc.. and to provide a source of hysterical lynch-mob members when western economic powers want a government destabilising.

I am beginning to wonder if there is an element of truth in it.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
23rd September 12, 04:15 PM
It wouldnt suprise me. Although I think the Saud family have made the best use of the Salafi.

Robot Jesus
23rd September 12, 04:27 PM
there all going to be equally embarrassed when Jesus returns and declares The United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing as the one true church.

Cullion
23rd September 12, 04:29 PM
The house of Saud was heavily supported in its rise to power by the British Empire and advised by British military officers and intelligence agents (like Captain William Shakespeare and T.E. Lawrence) from the beginning. Their princelings are still regularly educated at Sandhurst and equipped with the most sophisticated western arms and surveillance equipment. Prince Bandar was on cheek-kissing and hand-holding terms with the Bush family.

http://truthquake.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/bush-george-w-king-abdullah-gay-holding-hands-koch-brothers-prince-bandar-freemason-illuminati-saudi-arabia-house-buying-aspen-colorado-murder-denver-airport-princess-diana-property-fahrenheit-911-carlyle-group-crime-kissing-kiss.jpg

^A major donor to wahabi/salafi insurgent groups, holding hands with an old family friend.

And yet, these people routinely and publicly donate substantial sums of money to extreme and sometimes violent salafi/wahabi agents in other countries. The 9-11 attackers were saudis.

The supposedly extreme/terrorist muslims we end up actually declaring war against, tend to be mystical or peasant-based grass-roots groups that are probably not infilitrated by western intelligence much, and they tend to despise the Saudi Royals.

Suffice to say, there is a story we aren't being told about the weird little love-triangle of the Western military-industrial complex, the corrupt Sunni monarchies of the arab world, and the Salafi/Wahabi movement.