- Messages
- 9,933
Is The Discussion Of The Shitty Parts Of Islam Bigotry?
- Thread starter Grand Potentate
- Start date
-
- Tags
- joos
- Messages
- 22,314
That is how I have always described the historical difference between America and Canada to people. ask a Canadian "what are you" and many will tell you their nationality of origin whereas an American always used to say "I'm American" no matter where they came from
- Messages
- 9,933
This guy gets it. Interested in knowing if the 80% claim is true, but otherwise he at least deserves the stamp of DW approved.
- Messages
- 22,314
That is the issue. Many of the European countries were set up for immigrants to come in, not work, and do better than many of the natives.
I think Muslims are the only sect that actively tries to change the laws of the land or at least not follow them following their Shariah beliefs to one degree or another.
- Messages
- 22,314
- Messages
- 9,933
He is savvy. Let them try, but just do it on a Yemen welfare check instead.
- Messages
- 22,314
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-france-shooting-hezbollah-idUSKBN0KI1OM20150109
Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons
BEIRUT Fri Jan 9, 2015 11:39am EST
(Reuters) - The leader of the Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah said on Friday that Islamist terrorists had done more harm to Islam than any cartoon or book, a reference to the attack by suspected Islamist militants on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet."
Takfiri is a term for a Muslim who accuses others, including another Muslim, of apostasy. Hezbollah considers members of ultra-hardline Sunni-dominated groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State to be takfiris.
Twelve people were killed in the presumed Islamist militant attack on Wednesday at the weekly Charlie Hebdo, which has often lampooned Islam and other religions as well as politicians and other public figures.
Cartoons in Charlie Hebdo have provoked angry reactions from some Muslims. Footage of the killings at the paper's offices showed gunmen shouting "we have avenged the Prophet Mohammad".
Nasrallah was speaking to supporters in Beirut's southern suburbs via video link to commemorate the birthday of the Prophet.
Hezbollah, which Washington describes as a terrorist group, functions as a political party that is part of the Lebanese government. It also has a military wing that has sent hundreds of fighters to support President Bashar al-Assad's forces in neighboring Syria.
Hezbollah chief says terrorists damage Islam more than cartoons
BEIRUT Fri Jan 9, 2015 11:39am EST
(Reuters) - The leader of the Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah said on Friday that Islamist terrorists had done more harm to Islam than any cartoon or book, a reference to the attack by suspected Islamist militants on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said what he called "takfiri terrorist groups" had insulted Islam more than "even those who have attacked the messenger of God through books depicting the Prophet or making films depicting the Prophet or drawing cartoons of the Prophet."
Takfiri is a term for a Muslim who accuses others, including another Muslim, of apostasy. Hezbollah considers members of ultra-hardline Sunni-dominated groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State to be takfiris.
Twelve people were killed in the presumed Islamist militant attack on Wednesday at the weekly Charlie Hebdo, which has often lampooned Islam and other religions as well as politicians and other public figures.
Cartoons in Charlie Hebdo have provoked angry reactions from some Muslims. Footage of the killings at the paper's offices showed gunmen shouting "we have avenged the Prophet Mohammad".
Nasrallah was speaking to supporters in Beirut's southern suburbs via video link to commemorate the birthday of the Prophet.
Hezbollah, which Washington describes as a terrorist group, functions as a political party that is part of the Lebanese government. It also has a military wing that has sent hundreds of fighters to support President Bashar al-Assad's forces in neighboring Syria.
- Messages
- 21,856
But you see that would require me to view these people as human beings and so far their conduct, behaviour and value to society is really no better than a stray dog on the street. Pandering to feral animals will never elevate them to anything better if indeed they can amount to anything.
- Messages
- 9,933
This is how easy Europe has made it.
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
- Messages
- 9,127
Bloody xtians are always trying to change abortion laws and make laws against gays.
- Messages
- 9,127
Different country mate. Not sure where you are ...
xtians here are always trying to wind back abortion laws.
xtians here are always trying to wind back abortion laws.
- Messages
- 9,127
I must say its not all xtians.
- Messages
- 9,127
shariah law has as much effect on me as catholic canon law, talmudic law, etc etc . Which all currently operate.
The real/ secular law has a BIG effect on me and society.
The real/ secular law has a BIG effect on me and society.
- Messages
- 6,461
One upside of this is that the AP, realizing their hypocrisy, removed the old Serrano photo from their image library. As a Christian, I thank the Moslems* for getting this done. If they could take out doghouse for his image posting next...
Here's a great article from a funny (sorry Charlie, you guys were not funny) publication, Cracked magazine for the people with ridiculous beliefs about Islam,
5 Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam
There was another point I wanted to make based on a recent Jack Baruth article, but that site is currently bunged...
* Some article said that the older spelling, Moslem, is offensive for some linguistic reason. The archaic Mohammedan is also recommended for subtle antagonism.
- Messages
- 12,492
- Messages
- 9,933
France is getting attention because they're white, but 2,000 were killed in a town in Nigeria by some bunch of Islamist lunatics called Boco Haram.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/africa/boko-haram-deadliest-attack/
I mean, they killed everyone in an entire village. Nigeria is so fucked up, it just doesn't have limits. But hey, be like Howard Dean and say they're not muslims.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/africa/boko-haram-deadliest-attack/
I mean, they killed everyone in an entire village. Nigeria is so fucked up, it just doesn't have limits. But hey, be like Howard Dean and say they're not muslims.
- Messages
- 12,492
That is getting a lot of play on the news. Well, the real news anyway..
- Messages
- 9,933
Not much of that left.
See what I mean, look at this staged fake ass photo op, the top pic is what the mainstream media is running with:
- Messages
- 22,314
Not surprising that a few deaths in the western world take centre stage over thousands killed in the savage lands
- Messages
- 6,461
That's why. It's a foot in the door and you lose the ability to say it's enough. Zero tolerance is the way to go.
Africa is always a war zone, so that's more dog bites man.
- Messages
- 12,492
- Messages
- 22,314
Good point. I am not sure Islam has contributed anything to the world since, when, around the crusades or the dark ages.
There is historical reference to medical/surgical innovations around 1200 or 1300 then pfffft
- Messages
- 6,461
Nah, this is enforced by practitioners, not law. Although you have a point that it might become like the gay mafia problem we currently have where some noisy minority gets special legal protections.
It's a simple fact that to remain above scrutiny one must squelch detractors.
Then why are the numbers the other way? The power shift is going one way and not the other for a reason.
- Messages
- 22,314
I was going to say growing up included not killing in the name of religion but then I thought about northern Ireland. And then inthought again about them being Irish and all. Still conflicted though.
But the Muslim mentality does come across as never having progressed from the goatherd days of yore. It only has been $$$ from resources that has enabled them to put a thin shiny veneer over things.
If you touch a dog and have to wash 7 times and shit like that, doesn't leave much time to grow.
But the Muslim mentality does come across as never having progressed from the goatherd days of yore. It only has been $$$ from resources that has enabled them to put a thin shiny veneer over things.
If you touch a dog and have to wash 7 times and shit like that, doesn't leave much time to grow.
- Messages
- 12,492
Egg zactly
- Messages
- 22,314
They are one trick ponies
"Israel is putting up more settlements" "kill them"
"Someone made a cartoon about the prophet". "Kill them"
"Hey, the rerun of Full House isn't on tonight. Some Aj Jezeera special called Death in France". "No Full House?" "Kill them"
"Israel is putting up more settlements" "kill them"
"Someone made a cartoon about the prophet". "Kill them"
"Hey, the rerun of Full House isn't on tonight. Some Aj Jezeera special called Death in France". "No Full House?" "Kill them"
- Messages
- 9,127
The Irish issue is not, and mostly has never been, about religion. It was about politics, British rule in Northern Ireland and getting rid of the gerrymander that gave disproportionate representation to protestant supporters of British rule.
No one was ever killed in Ireland for doing a drawing or cartoon of the pope, or taking the piss out of the catholic religion.
No one was ever killed in Ireland for doing a drawing or cartoon of the pope, or taking the piss out of the catholic religion.
- Messages
- 6,461
Hygiene is bad? One could make a much greater case against secular obsessions.
1. So you'd agree that America is regressing?
2. Cite irrationality?
The interesting thing here for me is this notion that a nation gets to have an army and go out and kill people to advance it's interest, but a religious community is somehow condemnable for doing the same.
The notion of government and governmental powers being linked to land masses should be coming to an end.
Is anyone doubting that Europe will be predominantly Moslem in half a century or so? Why this effort to fight the inevitable?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,492
Hahahahahahahahahahahhaahahhaahahahahahahhahahahaahhahahahabahah......
Wait, wait...
Hahahahahahahahahaahahhahaahhahaahhaahahahahahhahaahhahaahahaaha
- Messages
- 9,933
To me, its a distinction without a difference. Nobody ever looked at the N Irish and wondered how they got so evolved and sophisticated. Yeah, its a continuum and on one end is the religion of peace and their parasites sucking up the social resources of developed nations, then blowing shit up, and a group of Irish tossers fighting over bullshit but mostly leaving the rest of the world out of it.
- Messages
- 9,933
Its a very, very thin line in my view. It's kind of a proxy elite dynamic... you get a nation state, you're in the blow shit up legally club.
- Messages
- 9,933
As long as you keep buying their oil, they are always going to be a threat. You give those people money, they will blow shit up with it. Cut Islam off and starve it. Show the religion of peace that it's never going to be more than goat herding. Keep gold plating the terd, and eventually they'll get nuclear bombs.
- Messages
- 22,314
Keystone XL, baby
- Messages
- 14,185
I heard on the news that Birmingham is already under Sharia Law and closed to all Infidels.
- Messages
- 22,314
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/more-s...the-likeliest-we-are-charlie-result-1.2898354
ANALYSIS
More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result
A renewed war on terror seems to be what's on most Western governments' minds
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Jan 13, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 13, 2015 7:15 AM ET
Well, everyone must at least feel better now, having chanted and declared for days that we're all Charlie.
It was, or it seemed, a cry for freedom of speech, ringing outward from one of the world's first secular democracies.
In reality, though, with all due respect to the sentiment behind it, Sunday's great march through the centre of Paris, and others like it around the world, must qualify as one of the greatest collective acts of slacktivism so far this century.
And the consequences of all this outrage may be far from what the protesters intended
Think about it: just whom were these marchers addressing? The executioners who showed up at Charlie Hebdo last week?
If those characters were still alive, they would probably answer no, you're not Charlie, because we killed Charlie.
Perhaps the slogan was directed at the bearded ISIS fighters who've been slaughtering and raping and oppressing their way through modern-day Mesopotamia and the Levant.
If so, the message was probably received with some bemusement. Perhaps even a bit of triumphalism. Score another one for their version of Islam.
Or were the I-Am-Charlie crowds addressing their own governments?
The leaders of several governments were in fact marching right up front with them in Paris over the weekend, which was a wonderful photo op, but really a bit rich given some of the alliances and the practices that some of those nations are involved in.
Certain close strategic partners of the U.S. and Canada are actively and violently anti-free-speech.
Egypt, a big recipient of U.S. aid, imprisons and tortures people just for belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was democratically elected to govern and then overthrown.
On Friday, two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, Saudi Arabia administered the first 50 of a thousand lashes to Raif Badawi, a blogger convicted of insulting Islam.
He is also serving a 10-year prison sentence. Which means, effectively, that the Saudis intend to lash Badawi grievously, perhaps even to death, for speech far less corrosive than Charlie Hebdo's deliberately insulting cartoons.
How does that make Saudi Arabia substantively different from the Charlie Hebdo attackers? Is it merely a matter of scale and method?
Life of Brian
Where Saudi is concerned, though, the West has chosen its criticism carefully. The State Department (not the president) called the Badawi sentence "inhumane."
Canada's "ambassador for religious freedom" (not the prime minister) echoed that, calling it "unbecoming of a society that seeks to advance itself within the family of nations."
The Saudis, unsurprisingly, seem undeterred.
The fact is, even Western governments are never terribly enthusiastic about free speech, or at least speech they find inconvenient
Two years ago, President Barack Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, criticized Charlie Hebdo for publishing the cartoons that eventually drew the killers to its offices.
"We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory," Carney declared in late 2012.
Note this is the same administration that publicly castigated Sony Pictures for caving to pressure recently and NOT releasing a film that was deeply offensive to North Korea.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his official statement of outrage at the Charlie Hebdo attack, made no reference to free speech at all, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Canada, unlike the U.S., offers no guarantee of free speech in its constitution.
And Canadians are certainly not Charlie. My guess is that an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo wouldn't last even a few days in Canada before concerned Muslim or Christian or Jewish citizens would be demanding charges be laid under Canada's hate-speech laws, or dragging the magazine before one of our provincial human rights commissions that specialize in rooting out offensive expression.
Canada even has an anti-blasphemy law on the books. It was last used in an attempted private prosecution against the distributors of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian in 1980.
War on terror redux
Western governments are, however, quite interested in enforcement and security, and that, not more speech, is the order of the day once again.
With unintended irony, and a very short memory, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared over the weekend that France is now locked in a "war on terror."
That's exactly the term George W. Bush used after 9/11. It presaged an unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state and the powers of America's security apparatus.
Civil liberties were tossed aside. Other countries' laws, even those of U.S. allies, became irrelevant.
And the frightened American population cheered.
The French, among others, mocked the slogan relentlessly, especially once it became apparent that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, carried out as part of this war on terror, was based on a false pretext.
Eventually, Bush's own Pentagon quietly dropped the slogan. And when the Democrats took the White House, they repudiated it.
But it's clearly back on. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with the French prime minister. America, he said, is at war, too.
Next month, Washington is convening an international summit to discuss new measures.
Canada is preparing new legislation to expand the powers of its security agencies.
The French, and the Americans, and no doubt the Canadians, are considering how better to monitor and obliterate incitement on the internet.
Or, more precisely, what security officials consider incitement. It's a term that can be interpreted rather broadly, and no doubt will be.
Clearly, the ultimate answer to the Charlie Hebdo massacre will not be freer speech. It will be a mostly secret intensification of police power, with attendant shrinkage of individual freedoms.
And we will all be told not to worry: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
At least one French demonstrator seemed to recognize some of this over the weekend. The sign he hoisted read: "Je marche, mais je suis conscient de la confusion et de l'hypocrisie de la situation."
I march, but I am aware of the confusion and hypocrisy of the situation.
ANALYSIS
More state power, not free speech, the likeliest we-are-Charlie result
A renewed war on terror seems to be what's on most Western governments' minds
By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Jan 13, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 13, 2015 7:15 AM ET
Well, everyone must at least feel better now, having chanted and declared for days that we're all Charlie.
It was, or it seemed, a cry for freedom of speech, ringing outward from one of the world's first secular democracies.
In reality, though, with all due respect to the sentiment behind it, Sunday's great march through the centre of Paris, and others like it around the world, must qualify as one of the greatest collective acts of slacktivism so far this century.
And the consequences of all this outrage may be far from what the protesters intended
Think about it: just whom were these marchers addressing? The executioners who showed up at Charlie Hebdo last week?
If those characters were still alive, they would probably answer no, you're not Charlie, because we killed Charlie.
Perhaps the slogan was directed at the bearded ISIS fighters who've been slaughtering and raping and oppressing their way through modern-day Mesopotamia and the Levant.
If so, the message was probably received with some bemusement. Perhaps even a bit of triumphalism. Score another one for their version of Islam.
Or were the I-Am-Charlie crowds addressing their own governments?
The leaders of several governments were in fact marching right up front with them in Paris over the weekend, which was a wonderful photo op, but really a bit rich given some of the alliances and the practices that some of those nations are involved in.
Certain close strategic partners of the U.S. and Canada are actively and violently anti-free-speech.
Egypt, a big recipient of U.S. aid, imprisons and tortures people just for belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was democratically elected to govern and then overthrown.
On Friday, two days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, Saudi Arabia administered the first 50 of a thousand lashes to Raif Badawi, a blogger convicted of insulting Islam.
He is also serving a 10-year prison sentence. Which means, effectively, that the Saudis intend to lash Badawi grievously, perhaps even to death, for speech far less corrosive than Charlie Hebdo's deliberately insulting cartoons.
How does that make Saudi Arabia substantively different from the Charlie Hebdo attackers? Is it merely a matter of scale and method?
Life of Brian
Where Saudi is concerned, though, the West has chosen its criticism carefully. The State Department (not the president) called the Badawi sentence "inhumane."
Canada's "ambassador for religious freedom" (not the prime minister) echoed that, calling it "unbecoming of a society that seeks to advance itself within the family of nations."
The Saudis, unsurprisingly, seem undeterred.
The fact is, even Western governments are never terribly enthusiastic about free speech, or at least speech they find inconvenient
Two years ago, President Barack Obama's spokesman, Jay Carney, criticized Charlie Hebdo for publishing the cartoons that eventually drew the killers to its offices.
"We know that these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory," Carney declared in late 2012.
Note this is the same administration that publicly castigated Sony Pictures for caving to pressure recently and NOT releasing a film that was deeply offensive to North Korea.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in his official statement of outrage at the Charlie Hebdo attack, made no reference to free speech at all, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Canada, unlike the U.S., offers no guarantee of free speech in its constitution.
And Canadians are certainly not Charlie. My guess is that an English-language version of Charlie Hebdo wouldn't last even a few days in Canada before concerned Muslim or Christian or Jewish citizens would be demanding charges be laid under Canada's hate-speech laws, or dragging the magazine before one of our provincial human rights commissions that specialize in rooting out offensive expression.
Canada even has an anti-blasphemy law on the books. It was last used in an attempted private prosecution against the distributors of the Monty Python movie Life of Brian in 1980.
War on terror redux
Western governments are, however, quite interested in enforcement and security, and that, not more speech, is the order of the day once again.
With unintended irony, and a very short memory, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared over the weekend that France is now locked in a "war on terror."
That's exactly the term George W. Bush used after 9/11. It presaged an unprecedented expansion of the surveillance state and the powers of America's security apparatus.
Civil liberties were tossed aside. Other countries' laws, even those of U.S. allies, became irrelevant.
And the frightened American population cheered.
The French, among others, mocked the slogan relentlessly, especially once it became apparent that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, carried out as part of this war on terror, was based on a false pretext.
Eventually, Bush's own Pentagon quietly dropped the slogan. And when the Democrats took the White House, they repudiated it.
But it's clearly back on. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with the French prime minister. America, he said, is at war, too.
Next month, Washington is convening an international summit to discuss new measures.
Canada is preparing new legislation to expand the powers of its security agencies.
The French, and the Americans, and no doubt the Canadians, are considering how better to monitor and obliterate incitement on the internet.
Or, more precisely, what security officials consider incitement. It's a term that can be interpreted rather broadly, and no doubt will be.
Clearly, the ultimate answer to the Charlie Hebdo massacre will not be freer speech. It will be a mostly secret intensification of police power, with attendant shrinkage of individual freedoms.
And we will all be told not to worry: If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
At least one French demonstrator seemed to recognize some of this over the weekend. The sign he hoisted read: "Je marche, mais je suis conscient de la confusion et de l'hypocrisie de la situation."
I march, but I am aware of the confusion and hypocrisy of the situation.
- Messages
- 9,933
I couldn't agree more. I didn't change my avatar to "Je Suis Carlie" for a reason. I'm not. And a bunch of false unity and world leader photo ops aren't going to change shit. Stop buying their oil, stop letting their phony asylum seekers in.
- Messages
- 12,492
I heard on the news that Birmingham is already under Sharia Law and closed to all Infidels.
So much win.
Hey
Dropbear
, did you start the riot at the dart competition? Or was that
fxh
?http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/darts/30761576
- Messages
- 14,185
- Messages
- 22,314
So Charlie Hebdo will publish on its cover the Prophet crying and saying all is forgiven.
More interesting is that they are publishing 3 million copies. Normally they publish 60,000 to 100,000 and sales are often only around 30,000
Nothing like a human tragedy paced with overtly religious overtones to drive a potential financial windfall
More interesting is that they are publishing 3 million copies. Normally they publish 60,000 to 100,000 and sales are often only around 30,000
Nothing like a human tragedy paced with overtly religious overtones to drive a potential financial windfall