Angry Muslims

Post Reply New Topic

Yes.

^Sorry for being an arse. I think Joker just left a bad taste in my mouth. (ugh please no innuendos)

I'd like to sat that Tequila doesn't say anything against 'being' Irish. AFAIK, he used to be interested in Unionism (which isn't in itself against being Irish), but now he takes the view that terrorists are scum and the people of NI should decide what they want (correct me if I'm wrong).

If it looks like I defend Tequila a lot on here, I don't mean to, it's just that I think people misinterpret him with his union flag avatar, and stuff.

No, I don't mean that - but I was referring to IrishTusk, with his support for both PIRA and possible sympathy for dissident republican terrorism (oh, and open admission that he has been involved in rioting in NI as a republican). That was in the context of what YippySkippy said. If blanket approval of everything the PIRA did is "standing up for the Irish" (not even the IRA, murdering bastards that they are/were, think like that any more), then I'm astounded.

I also think the PLO are a bunch of murdering scumbags as well.

As for the PLO:
1. They 'aint Hamas.
2. According to wiki

So they sort of became what Sinn Fein are, now (former terrorists).

True, I suppose. I don't think that people should idolise these people (they seem incapable of democracy and looking after their people), but at least they're not as bad as Hamas. They still want an end to the Jewish state, though.

Don't be astounded, that's not what I meant.

Although I have Irish blood from both my mother and fathers side I do not harbor hatred towards the British first off I am American born and was never arround during such turmoil but I also have Welsh and British blood from my mothers side.The IRA were thought to be fighting for freedom but I agree that they took things too far and some innocent citzens have died during those conflicts both British and Irish.

Add one more stereotype to the ever-growing list:
Thug/gangsta (that hold pistols sideways) African-Americans/blacks
Rich, fat, snooty, racist, pedophile whites
Smart, submissive-yet-kinky Asians
Illegal, drug-using/trafficking, knife-wielding, cross-wearing Hispanics
Fat, greasy, pinky-ring wearing, mob-affiliated Italians (or, converesly, the new image you see in Jersey Shore)
Money-grubbing, greedy, hook-nosed, comedian, bank-controlling Jews
Child-molesting, robe-wearing Catholics
Closet-Nazi, sausage-eating, techno-listening Germans
Devil-worshipping, baby-sacrificing, angry goths
Fat, ugly lesbians
Over-the-top effeminate gay men.
and now: Angry, zealot, head-chopping, "Westerner"-hating Muslims

Come on, let's get this straightened out: Stereotypes are inaccurate and easily disproven and idiots and savages exist among all types of humans and always will. The Crusades were some of the most horrific acts carried out by religious zealots...

But "head-chopping" is prescribed in the Quran (8:12 and 47:4).

And the crusades ended a long time ago. And this is 2012. And why are Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists not rioting in the streets in response to mockery of their deities?

In a conflict between civilized men and savages, support the civilized men.

ruveyn

Unless you're an Egyptian-American journalist who was sexually assaulted on Tahir Square in Egypt last year by savages of course. Then you'll support the savage.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVw1XRT48iQ[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0jSSLleGiY[/youtube]

Islam doesn't like free speech.

The Bible promotes violence as well. Stoning originated from the Jews and was passed down in the Christian Bible. The practice of beheading was viewed as the easiest way to execute someone. Many of the traditions in regards to execution were cultural in origin long before the religion was introduced. The same with other things that have come to be associated with religion such as the Hijab. Women wore the same clothing before Islam was even conceived. Even the "religious laws" regarding pork and non-Kosher/Halal foods were the result of a cultural issue, not necessarily a religious one (pigs were known to carry disease and were often improperly cooked/processed, leading to illness, which in turn, gave birth to the reputation of "unclean foods").

As for the Crusades, it doesn't matter if an atrocity was committed one day ago, one decade ago, one century ago or even a millennium ago, it is still unjust to murder others for simply not ascribing to your beliefs or for belonging to a group other than your own. By that logic, lynching African-American/black people was OK, as was the Holocaust, because it happened "a long time ago." The passage of time doesn't justify murder.

I am also acutely aware that it is the year 2012...

I am unaware of any Jewish majority (n=1) or Christian majority countries that practice stoning or beheading this day (although I wouldn't be *completely* surprised if Uganda did). And as I have previously stated elsewhere, it is interesting that Tel Aviv was named the most LGBT friendly city in the world in 2011, given the existence of Leviticus 20:13. A great number of current practices in Islamic countries (like cutting off hands, beheading, stoning, whipping, child marriages, religious persecution) are however directly based on Islamic scripture.

I see no real benefit from differentiating between a cultural issue or a religious issue once that issue has been codified into religious law, which is most definitely the case with Islam (The Quran and hadith). It is not a difference that makes a difference.



I think that you have misunderstood my point (or that I have been sloppy at presenting it).

My point is: Many Islamic countries continue to use their millennia old barbaric practices this very day on a massive scale, and they do so because of the religion of Islam, and not because of some diffuse cultural tradition. This is what separates Islam from both Judaism and Christianity (except some fringe lunatic factories). And this has nothing do to with how long ago the Crusades took place.

[Snide remark: Which could be as recent as a decade ago, Master, if based upon one of the more moronic statements of a former US president]

Exactly. It's not even all Muslim-majority countries that behave like that, either.

Funny how 50 years ago, there were still plenty of Muslims(although not in the West)and there was very little Islamic violence. Not even regional. But here's the deal: Something clearly precipitated the resurgence of militant Islam and motivated aggressive muslims to pour into western countries. What was it? One thing that is abundantly clear is that Western(especially American)interventionism in that region has been disastrous. Perhaps it might be the collapse of global communism motivated people to search for an alternative ideology too confront western imperialism.

But with regard to these religious wars, I think that Christians just really hate having competition! Especially western evangelical protestantism.

There may be 3 other explanations:

1. The realism of the cold war. No one dared causing trouble (unless being a proxy of either the US or the USSR).
2. There was in fact Islamic violence. But the media didn't cover it, because the media cared about other things at the time.
3. Oil (with the increasing oil revenues post WW2 in Saudi Arabia, the Hanbali and Salafi branches gained greater prominence within Islam)