Angry Muslims

Post Reply New Topic

I hate the Vatican almost as much as I hate the House of Saud, and the same goes for many Catholic doctrines (which are responsible for a huge amount of suffering in the world both historically and presently). The main problem with Catholicism is the doctrine of Natural Law and the resulting ban on contraception. I think the influence of the Catholic church is declining though, and the Church has a stance of conciliation as far as individuals are concerned, even though it refuses to budge on doctrine. Most of Sunni and Shi'a Islam has no such stance. No conciliation and it's hardening. That's why it's of more concern to me.

Well, from an Irish context at least, Islam isn't a big concern. England isn't undergoing 'Islamification' as the Littlejohns and right wing love to pedal and even if it was it won't make a jot of difference to me or anyone I care about. Kiddie fiddling priests on the other hand, well thats another matter.

In the US, the evangelicals are more of a problem than the Catholics (although the Catholics haven't realized this yet, for the most part).

Of course they are. I'd argue that that the evangelicals are catching up with the Catholic church on a global level, as well (insofar as the developing world is concerned). I have a lot of respect for certain individuals in the Church, but I won't shy away from criticising the dogma and the power structure.

I think about most things on a global scale.

This doesn't exactly put the Muslims in a good light now, does it? In fact, whichever way you cut it, the vandal is actually defending the savage/jihadists. (Twitter has a #proudsavage hashtag now.)

Muslims and Arabs with any sense will do just what atheists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and others do every day when they see something they don't like - they either ignore it, or they argue against it peacefully (by, hell, putting up posters of their own!). In fact, many Muslims and Arabs (which aren't always the same thing, and not all Arabs dislike Israel).

The U.S. is the land of free speech. As I said, I'd look forward to hearing Arabs paying money to put their own posters up. And anti-free speech people should similarly be prosecuted if they attacked their poster.

Bear in mind that the Egyptian "journalist" didn't just attack the poster but she also assaulted the person who put the poster up.

Would it be inciteful to tell Germans in the 1930s that the people that they had voted for in Nazi Germany were savages? (There was quite a lot of opposition to the Nazis in 30's Germany as it happens - certainly more vocal opposition than you'll find against the two groups in 'Occupied Palestine'.)

Which, if you look at what the Palestinian groups say is basically "wipe out Israel" on the one hand and "wipe out Israel, kill all the Jews and establish an Islamic theocracy" on the other. Both Hamas and Fatah are elected by their respective governments.

I'm sorry, but when most people actually look at the facts of the "Palestinian cause" with an open mind they lose sympathy very quickly. I did. And that's not even to say that Israel is perfect or anything like that. Israel has its own problems with regards to discrimination in its borders. It's not a perfect country - far from it. But at least they don't laud people blowing up buses on TV.

The Palestinian leadership and media blame everything they possibly can on the Jews.

Do you support the positions of either Hamas or Fatah? Even the leader of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas, is increasingly isolated and seen as being too close to the Israelis within his own constituency because he's not supportive enough of Islamic bloodlust against Jews. Bear in mind that huge amounts of money for public services and the like has simply gone missing in the PA and into the pockets of the leadership. Honestly, these guys can't make a cup of coffee.

What do you think would happen to Jews in Israel if Israel ceased to exist? Here's a big, big clue: have a look at what has been happening to Jews and Christians all over the Arab world for decades now. Then have a look at Palestinian and Arab media. Then take a look at recent Palestinian atrocities against Israelis. Palestinian media (both groups) exults these people. They see murdering Israeli Jews going to work, shopping, doing their thing as being the greatest honour they can possibly aspire to. It's sick.

None of this means Israel is above criticism - far from it. They have a lot more mundane things inside Israel that they need to work on, like representation and the treatment of Arab minorities in Israel - but Israelis understand all this.



First off, Muslims are not a race. Islam is a religion (and a political ideology), not a race. There are Muslims of all different races and creeds across the world. You forever hear Islamic apologists saying just that (I have, often in debates with them).

Not all Arabs support "the poor Palestinians" either. Ask some of the Arab minorities within Israel (most notably, the Druze and Muslim Bedouins).

No, what it implies is that you don't support the "savage" - i.e. the jihadist, or the jihadist supporter/sympathiser. It doesn't refer to all Muslims (not even inside Israel, where there are quite a few loyal Israeli Muslims in all areas of life). In Israel itself, a majority of Israeli Arabs support Israel - A Truman Institute survey from 2005 found that 63% of the Arab citizens accept the principle that Israel is the state of the Jewish people. They do pretty well out of the deal compared to many Arabs living in other Arab countries too.

Now, not all Palestinians support terrorism, but the majority do.

Nearly half of all Palestinians support attacks on Israelis anywhere in Israel, even within the lines of the 1949 Armistice Agreements - that, FYI, doesn't include any of the West Bank, or of the Gaza Strip, or any of the Sinai desert (which was given back to Egypt in the late 1970s) and so on. 55% reject any recognition of Israel whatsoever.

60% support the Hamas Charter of killing Jews - not "just" Israelis but Jews.

If you support jihadists, you're a savage. Simple as that. I don't care whether you're a Muslim or not a Muslim. If you support the likes of Breivik (a kind of non-Muslim jihadist), you're a disgusting, slimy scumbag who deserves contempt.



Just shows their lack of capacity for freedom of thought then doesn't it. "My 'bruvvaz', right or wrong, innit yo". Should we pander to their infantile, self-entitled bigotry and not offer an alternative viewpoint?



I prefer to describe it as "stirring up common sense", but that's just me.

No-one's saying that all Muslims are bad people, not in the slightest. It's a pro-Israel ad that works in generalities. It's what adverts are meant to do. Otherwise, you'll end up with a thousand-page long paper instead of an advert.

Like I keep saying - I hope an Arab / Islamic / Muslim organisation comes up with a good rebuttal instead of trying to stifle dissent.



I am kidding nothing and no-one. This woman is standing up for free speech. Incidentally, I feel the same way about Holocaust deniers, and people who write stuff criticising British soldiers or sending bigoted crap on Twitterbook.

Just get on with it, live with it, ignore it. You don't have to fight every time someone says something you don't like. You just have to accept that some people in society hold these views and move on.

I'm sure genuinely integrated secular Muslims (many who may well be having doubts, or possibly even covertly or overtly ex-Muslims) understand this all too well, and they have my support. They see the yawning chasm between what their religion prescribes as proper conduct and what society is like where they live now. And many of them look at their particular ideology's teachings with horror. So they ignore them as much as they can.



They didn't do that either.

Oh dear. You haven't got much of an argument, have you?



Not me. I can point to poll after poll that proves my contention. Can you?



But you know that there has never been an actual state called Palestine, don't you? Palestine wasn't a derivation from an Arabic name, but a European one. It was a pejorative name given to the area by the Romans when they invaded the place and sent most of the Jews away across the globe. That's why there is such a Jewish diaspora. For four hundred years before the British came to run their Mandate of Palestine (where the Jews eventually settled) it was ruled by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Jordan the vast majority of that former mandate, and most of the people there are Palestinians. Give the relevant parts (i.e. the non-Jewish areas/the areas not immediately bordering Israel at the moment) of the WB to them.

The "Palestinian nationality" only came into common currency very recently, and it was all in opposition to the State of Israel. Before that, most "Palestinians" were happy simply to call themselves Arabs. Not all Arabs in the region oppose the State of Israel (ask the Arab Druze, many of whom loyally serve in the IDF and as politicians in Israel) and some non-Arab countries (like Iran) want to destroy it.

Basically, if Arab countries commit horrible crimes and massacre civilians, the Arab world says nothing. When Israel does the slightest thing (or contravenes human rights or kills people), the Arab nations scream their heads off. Even if nothing does happen, they scream their heads off anyway.

The only reason why Israel isn't at peace is because it's non-Muslim, non-Arab and Jewish. In that part of the world, that's absolute heresy. "Palestine should belong to Allah" and all that.



Not quite. The comparison is completely irrelevant, again. Israel is the home of Judaism, and the home of the Jews. It's not like the British colonialism of America or the Indian subcontinent because the "colonisers" living there have nowhere else to go back to (the U.S. and Europe isn't their official home, it's the diaspora - if you like, the same applies to some Irish people - Ireland is their home, and where they're really from, but America is where they live now. To a point, but there isn't a religious imperative behind it in the same way that there is with Israel/Judaism.)

Which country is Israel a colony of? None; it's a Jewish and democratic state. Sure, I'd never pretend that Israel was heaven on Earth but by God I'd rather live there than most of the other Middle Eastern countries.

It's not an analogue of colonial rule at all, not even an analogue of Northern Ireland-style conflicts. And you know it.

I can see why, as an Irish nationalist, you'd be tempted to support the Palestinians due to that general socialist tendency to "support the underdog". Only problem is, that this "underdog" isn't really an underdog and is an extremely vicious, nasty, brutal, hateful beast. If this "underdog" ever attained power, the entire Jewish (and probably a lot of the Israeli Arab) population of Israel would be massacred.



"The Palestinians" won't accept anything - by God, the Israelis have tried everything reasonable that wasn't suicidal to their own nation. A large proportion of them accept nothing but the eventual destruction of Israel. That's the whole point. Any agreement with them is simply seen as a path on the road to destroying Israel and the Jews with them.

Did you read what I said? Half of all Palestinians support terrorist attacks even within the pre-1967 borders.

Ah, the plan proposed by the PLO? Ha. The Arabs themselves rejected that completely out of hand back in 1947-1948, as they've rejected every single other thing. When Israel declared its independence, the neighbouring Arab countries ganged up on Israel and invaded. If the "poor Palestinians" hadn't kept rejecting every sodding thing, hoping for total victory against the evil Zionist Entity, they could have had peace, land, and a bright future. They're the world's most obstinate, tiresome rejectionist crybabies. That's what I'm saying - their stances are completely contradictory - they say they want things that they've already rejected before because then it meant co-operating with the "Zionists". Israel can't win with this imaginary negotiators.

As for me - I prefer the three-state solution. Give the non-Jewish parts of the West Bank to Jordan (perhaps after a population transfer on some of the settlements, keeping clearly Jewish parts close to the border with Israel and East Jerusalem with it) and give Gaza to the Egyptians. Jordan has an identical culture and ethnic make-up to 'Palestine' and is full of "Palestinians". I know that both countries would absolutely hate the idea though. Absolutely hate it, because they hate "the Palestinians" too.

Of course, none of this would be an issue if it wasn't for the Arab world's endemic Jew hatred.



There is a ton the Palestinians could do for themselves. But they choose not to.



Oh, I know these people exist. I just think that a lot of them are dangerously naïve. I'm not talking about critics of Israel in general here, I'm talking about some of the people that these "Jews" associate with in their anti-Zionist views. They often associate with the worst racists and cheerleaders for terror, hardline Islamist sexists, Holocaust deniers and the like.

Some Jews also simultaneously deny the Holocaust as well as saying that Jews deserve it, claim that there's a vast Zionist world conspiracy, call themselves "proud self-hating Jews" and claim that Israel is worse than Nazi Germany. Would you support them too?



It's not considered hate speech in the U.S. Violently attacking property and people is considered to be, well, criminal acts. You're siding with criminals and "savages" over American values. Now, why would that not surprise me?

Listen mate, once you start censoring one side, you fairly soon start censoring everyone soon enough because, well, everyone can be "offended" about everything.

I think this post is long enough (and I probably won't get time to answer it tomorrow, so might well forget about it) but here's some more from that centre of communication, innovation and forward-thinking, Palestine!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f34BBha6z2g[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV2PDCuM5rc[/youtube]
(note: the official of the PA defines "Palestine" as including all of Israel)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EilUXd0DDqs[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjxm3OSy4EE[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxGGsoyC0Uo[/youtube]

Loads more where those came from.

Anyway - good night.

Last edited by Tequila on 30 Sep 2012, 5:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This is more or less true - notice that the Catholic Church is increasingly focusing on the third world, in grotty countries where religion has a huge hold on society because, well, far fewer people are buying their repressive claptrap these days in Europe.

I think a lot of them genuinely want to help the poor, as well. The only problem is that they bring good intentions and bad ideas.

Which never ends well. The worst kind of repressive, missionizing personality is one who believes he's doing it for someone else's own good and that he is in the right.

The nuns in America were recently chastized by the modern equivalent of the Inquisition (at least they don't threaten to burn anyone, any more) for focusing too much on helping poor people and working for peace, and not spending enough time fighting abortion and contraception. The heirarchy smacked the nuns harder for working for the poor than they slapped any bishop for hiding pedophile priests.

Just shows the godawful priorities of the Roman Catholic Church.

That's kind of odd. I would of the that helping the poor would be important, but apparently not.

Most American Catholics are liberals who are against abortion (Roe v. Wade was obviously a major factor in the shift). People think they are conservative because the hierarchy is a far-right organization and a racket. The Vatican caters to conservatives because they realized they are more likely to separate in a schism, e.g., lifting the excommunications without concessions of the Society of Saint Pius X in 2009 despite them having the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their library at the time and a virulent Holocaust denier who for some reason still thinks the Leuchter Report is legitimate. He even denied the Holocaust right before the lifting of the excommunications, so it was ridiculous and a black eye to Catholic-Jewish relations. How many people knew about that story here? It wasn't as big as it should have been.

The hierarchy does not represent the laiety at all. This all started back when Pope Pius IX declared infallibility to consolidate power against Communism, leading to the similar phrase "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." This led to an increasing shift to the right of the clergy, and it actually lit the fuse of the powder keg that was the sex abuse scandal, because in the end the only ones who felt comfortable as priests were conservatives who protected the hierarchy and pedophiles. And it continued with the ridiculous encyclical against contraception at Vatican II, where the far-right hierarchy just completely ignored every single input that the cycle method was barbaric and (almost) destroyed the love of many relationships (I think an overwhelming majority of Catholics don't listen to this at all anyway). In a Pew Forum survey taken in October 2011, 52% of Catholics support gay marriage (source). When you hear of vocal Catholics, you might think the Pope, Rick Santorum, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc. These people do not represent the majority of Catholics, but are so vocal it looks like they do. Unfortunately they do hold all the power in the faith still.

To make a long story short, you're correct that the influence is waning (and it has been for a while obviously), but they still have the most major influence. And most Catholics probably know they aren't welcome by the evangelicals. Rick Perry's prayer rally was extremely anti-Catholic (although Fox News got a shill Catholic priest to support it), and the Klan persecuted Catholics until David Duke came along and tried to make the group 'white-collar'. Besides, the Catholic Church thinks the evangelicals aren't even Christian, but who in the laiety cares what they think?

I heard of that.

Joining the Catholic church to effect good in the world is a double-edged sword. When I was a Christian, I was very focussed on 'works' - which put me at conflict with both the Church (which I was raised in) and evangelical protestantism.

Most lay Catholics in the Western world make up their own mind about contraception and gay rights. I don't suspect that's the case in some 3rd world countries.

I couldn't agree more. American intervention has done nothing but cause animosity. A simple fact is that people do not like having other countries coerce them or "restructure" their politics, culture, religion, etc. When this occurs, naturally people will become upset. In the eyes of those who dislike the people being "bullied," these outraged people are now "crazed, backwards, bloodthirsty terrorists who need to be wiped off the face of earth." I am aware of the fact that some of these individuals are simply impossible to please (as is the case with any group of people), and that there are legitimate terrorist organizations, but to paint every Muslim or Arab with a broad brush is ridiculous and makes the person doing so just as much a bigot as the terrorists themselves.