Angry Muslims

Post Reply New Topic

Oh I didn't want to imply that they do. If you feel offended, you can ask for an apology, but you are not entitled to it.



(The following link is NOT safe for work. It is not even close to being safe for work. Heck, you might be working at a strip club and it wouldn't be safe for work).

But still, I have to link to it: http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one ... age,35592/

(Seriously, the link is so not safe for work, that I even edited the URL, so you would have to manually reverse the numbers at the end of the url to be able to open it).

I think that we have to admit there is a problem with Islam. Sure, they are not representative of all Muslims. But these extremists exist and really. We should not - Not ever - Let them get away with this. They have no right not to be offended. I can post that picture with just about every major deity but Islam ones doing incredibly obscene things without fearing getting killed. I don't think Mohammed deserves to be immune to this. There are stupid documentaries mocking every religion. There are some mocking atheists. Why are Muslims the only ones going on Ambassador-killing rampages?

Because they believe that Allah will reward them in Heaven for the slaughter of infidels on Earth, and that it is their duty to Allah to kill all those who mock Islam.

Sorta like when a Christian tortures, rapes, and murders someone in the Name of God -- such people believe that anything done in God's name (1) is not a sin, and (2) serves to glorify God.

Sickos, just plain sickos.

I know what image you're talking, but the page says "Page Not Found".



The attack on the embassy in Libya, in which Ambassador Stevens was killed, was done by al-Qaeda. The video was used as a scapegoat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/top-administration-official-says-strike-in-libya-was-terror-attack/
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html

The Libyan people, numbered at 30,000, would later storm the HQ of a known Muslim extremeist miltias. They're not happy that Ambassador Stevens died. Not happy at all.

Yeah, they occupied their bases and have already forced some of them to disband.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world ... .html?_r=0

That's the kind of Muslim anger you can really get behind.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7OYRknGgEc&feature=related[/youtube]

Kudos to Pileo and co.

Don't ask questions rhetorically, pre-supposing the answer is 'because they're evil' or 'because their religion made them do it'. Questions are only any good if you go looking for and think through the answers.

What. The. f**k? Are you seriously suggesting using nuclear weapons? Or is this 'just' a sort of joke - 'Hur hur, wouldn't it be funny if we killed a load of people indiscriminately, hur hur'? And killing in the name of religion is crackpot BS, but doing so in the name of nationalism is the hallmark of decency and reason?

Seeing as the antis are just going round repeating stuff, I'll do so:

---

There's a variety of issues here. My point, if I have one [enter snide remark here], is that all this is complex. Unless you're just getting off on the RANT RANT RANT of it, it's far better to engage meaningfully with the questions and problems in a manner likely to bring about solutions. (Note: 'Kill/deport them all' does not count as a solution).

You could assume all Muslims are a write off - simultaneously mindless drones and intentionally bad - or you could assume they are human beings in a nexus of social and political relations, with a history and sociology and culture and so on. That, as with all humans, who they are and how they are treated, how they perceive themselves, will affect what they believe and with what intensity. Well, unless you believe in memes, and good luck with that.

If there's one thing guaranteed to make a group pull closer together, toward a 'extreme' version of their identity, and be more denouncing of self-criticism/reflection, it's outsiders threatening them. There are many people within Islam trying to bring about change. Before these people would have been done away with the approval of Western powers, because often their questioning of Islam-as-practised came with a socio-economic critique that threatened Western interests, too. Nowadays, where expedient, they will find themselves held close (and aloft) by the self-same Western powers who are also bombing and vilifying the people the critical Muslim was trying to engage with. I believe in diplomatic circles this is referred to as the "why are you hitting yourself?" route.

"We're invading and occupying and shooting and bombing you for your freedom and democracy. Now, don't think of getting angry when we kill your child - I mean, c'mon, it's just collateral damage - or you'll end up in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, if we decide to take you alive. Now, step away whilst we write into your constitution some radically 'free market' measures that will let us buy up your natural resources cheap."

I don't think it is helpful - to say the least - to approach any religious belief with all the tact and deftness of a twelve year old who's drunk on the power of his first piece of critical thinking and approaches a Nun with, 'You believe in sky fairies?. Are you a stupid thicko or something? Science has proved there's no God and everything! Snort'.

I also liked this:

Last edited by Hopper on 23 Sep 2012, 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Who is going to stop you? In what way are you not 'allowed'? As far as I'm aware, unless it's an exericise in irony and satire that passed me by, much of this thread (and a lot of threads on PPR) criticise Islam in itself, and the actions of Muslims (which are usually taken to represent all Muslims).

Say what you will. But if others deem it racist, expect to be called out on it.



Who is this 'we'? What counts as 'free speech'? Did you know, it's probably against the law for you to go up to a Nun and call her a 'sky pixie fearing dried up rancorous deluded old c**t'? Just incase, in the name of free speech, next time you see a Nun, get in there and strike a blow for freedom.

Similarly, after a demo, the Met wanted burning the Union Flag made illegal. I trust you keep my and your rights alive by burning one every morning?

And obviously you absolutely accept - nay, defend - the right of a bunch of kids to follow you around chanting '[your name here] is a pedo!'.



Ah, yes. Where do you stand on the vexed question of Muslim paedophiles? They're Muslims, which is bad. But they're paedophiles so, you know, have some sympathy. Tricky.



So you accept the category of thoughtcrime?

Last edited by Hopper on 23 Sep 2012, 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

The bottom line is that if they want to promote their faith as one that promotes peace, then they cannot do such violent acts.

Also a true comment.

ruveyn

So long as there exist "sleeper cells", there is no such thing as Islamophobia.

It is a Socratic question. Why do you refuse to address the question directly?

No, it is not because Muslims in general are evil. But it is clearly because there is a big issue with the Muslim world right now.

And pandering to them, blaming the idiots who made the video - rather than the savages that killed people because of it - will only make the problem worse.

It needs to be acknowledged that these extremists deserve jail rather than getting away with it and making us afraid of insulting their imaginary friend.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 23 Sep 2012, 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

.


From my experience in the UK muslims PLEAD for tolerance from everybody else but show absolutely NONE themselves.
They have invaded (yes invaded) my homeland and constantly gripe and moan for things to be changed to suit them.

Try wearing a St Christopher in Saudi Arabia and see what happens.
Yet they build their mosques and openly talk of turning the UK into an islamic state.

All the time our spineless politicians sit back and do nothing.
I hope I live long enough to see the indigenous population of Britain take to the streets and riot until every muslim is deported.

.

piroflip - Try spending time with ex-pats in another country. And really, what do you think the chances of an Islamic state? Many Christians would like a Christian state - they're just a bit quieter about it. But right now, your country is being sold to the highest bidder. Lives are being ruined and sacrificed to appease an abstract notion. That is actually happening - lives and streets and towns ruined. It's not a minority of people wishing it could be so, it's a minority of people making it so.

Not being arsey-literalist, but I'm not sure what the question is. From the general chatter I took it to be 'why did they react like that to the video?'. Pileo suggested that, in Bhengazi at least, they didn't, and that other Muslims in fact took it upon themselves to address that.

I think where crimes have been commited, there should be charges.

I suppose I'm interested in it at a slightly more abstract level - what are the mechanisms and dynamics, the psychology, that make this happen? What would make me behave in this way? etc. What symbolically or emotionally aggressive act toward, say, Tequila would make him physically lash out at someone?

A well known example - where a group of sports fans see their team lose, and go on a rampage.

I too fail to see the disservice such a statement does to Islam... I could easily find quotes in the Quran (like 9:5) to support the "hate-filled cult of violence" part (and when presented with counter-quotes from the same text - like 2:256 - I would smugly mention two words - Taqiyya and Naskh).

I usually try to be as tolerant towards the perspectives of others as possible, but sometimes you have to grab the bull by the horns: The problem with Islam is that Muhammad (if he ever existed) was a bad guy. And when the religion is built on either him alone (Sunni Islam) or him and his descendants (Shia Islam), it translates into a bad guy religion...

The two other predominant Abrahamic religions - Judaism and Christianity - both have safeguards against extremism... For Judaism it is not only the fact that only the first 5 books of the Tanakh were authored by Moses (if he ever existed), it is also due to the predominance of the Talmud in religious interpretation. This might be the reason why Tel Aviv was considered the most LGBT friendly city in the world in 2011 - despite the existence of Leviticus 18:22. For Christianity, it is even more obvious: Jesus (if he ever existed) didn't write The New Testament...

In both cases, this would promote a degree of moderation, as there would be a fundamental uncertainty in the the religious texts themselves (not being divine verdicts from front to back - I know Evangelicals would disagree, but then we agree to disagree). Islam, however, does not have similar safeguards... The Quran isn't just the work of Muhammad in its entirety, it is Allah speaking through him (See 33:59 for an example). Which makes the concept of rejecting extreme verses of the Quran somewhat difficult...

I am not hereby assuming that Muslims in general are bad guys (or girls). I don't claim to possess knowledge of the motivations of more than a billion human beings. But the research carried out by Pew Research Center suggests that the frequent "radical Islam is a minority opinion" statement might be empirically lacking.

Islam also currently lacks a mechanism for moderation... There have been several Islamic scholars who have rejected the more extreme commandments of Islamic scripture. Unfortunately, they are often targeted (and sometimes even killed) by the mainstream religious groups.

I find it especially illustrating that Ahmadiyya Muslims (who - by the way - reject Naskh) had to relocate their global headquarters from Pakistan to England (the former being a state founded with an *explicit* Islamic purpose, and the latter being an Evil islamophobic ally of the Evil islamophobic United States of America) because of persecution from mainstream Muslims. And Pakistan is predominantly Hanafi, which is supposed to be the most tolerant of the 4 major Sunni schools... And the persecution of the Bahá'í (who incorporate elements of Islam in their religion, and by doing so, are considered to be apostates)... How can anyone choose to persecute someone who's central message is "Be nice"?

... And I haven't even included the hadith yet.

Sorry, I have a sore throat and a runny nose and I'm not feeling too well at the moment. But, anyway...

Can I add polls run by the ICM (British), NOP (British), Populus (British), World Public Opinion, Federation of Student Islamic Societies (British; is itself riddled with extremist students and hate preachers openly recruit in Britain's universities - counts terrorists as part of its alumni), al-Jazeera (the hateful, Islamophobic scumbags!), al-Arabiya (another Zionist-loving entity, of course - must be Jews in disguise), the Centre for Social Cohesion (British) etc etc.

It's absolutely worth pointing out that not all Muslims are bad people but Islam is a bloody awful ideology. Many are compassionate people (and ignore most of the bloodthirsty, murderous, hateful stuff actually in the Quran, thereby actually opposing its teachings - the Quran actually implores Muslims to attack Muslims who don't match up, for they are considered "failures"). But there is a huge problem both in the Islamic world with the behaviour of nutcases, which stems right back to hatred in the Quran itself, reflected for millennia in the violent, supremacist, militaristic nature of Islam.

Pandering to bearded loonies will not ever work. They need to take some damn responsibility for themselves. For all the demands of tolerance from whining Muslims, their religion is pickled in hatred and intolerance right across the board. You just need to look at the anti-Semitism (no, not Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism) in the Arab countries to see that.

Last edited by Tequila on 23 Sep 2012, 10:49 am, edited 6 times in total.