"Suicide is against Islam. Martyrdom is not."
Contradictions everywhere. Just because you're killing for something's sake, doesn't mean that the act of killing itself is justified.
Otherwise explain the lopsided civilian kills during the Gaza War by the Israeli Force.
Secondly, so you think just because they did it that it reflects on ALL Muslims?
Originally Posted by Silver Soul
Last edited by BigLutz; 1st August 2012 at 9:42 PM.
Also, it's not like there is history in Christianity involving wars and such.
And mind you this wasn't just Palestine, there are accounts from Pakistan all the way to Britain of celebrations going on that day.
"Finsbury Park mosque. Pro-terror demonstrations, graffiti and anti-white posters. at Abu Hamsa’s terror camp
Forest Gate, East London. Local residents sickened by sounds of cheering and celebrations coming from Romford Road mosque on the evening of the slaughter. Muslims leaving the mosque drove off hooting their horns, shouting and waving.
Slough. Letter in Daily Telegraph to express disgust at having witnessed a class of 15-year-old British-born Pakistanis cheering, punching the air and mocking the tearful singing of the American national anthem.
Solihull, Land Rover Plant. Three workers suspended after mocking the three minute silence. Security staff had to escort them from the building to prevent them from being attacked.
Harrow. Fireworks let off during the three minutes silence on Friday.
Cardiff. Young Muslims celebrate in city centre with flags on the evening of the attack.
Birmingham, Small Heath. Celebrations inside and outside local mosque.
Birmingham, Aston. Serious tension in main Royal Mail sorting office after Muslim workers applaud the attacks.
Derby. Local residents disgusted as celebrations in a mosque spill out onto the street with flag waving and chants of triumph.
Oldham. Cheering inside and outside mosques. White workers in Littlewoods Call Centre appalled when Muslim co-workers respond to news of the attack by “jumping up and down with joy.” Schoolchildren celebrate at Grange School with further celebrations along Waterloo Street. Park Cake Bakery. 4 Muslims sacked after cheering during 3 minute silence. Waterloo Street. “Cheering and dancing in the street” after news of the attack broke.
Burnley. A would-be customer in a major shop in the town centre couldn’t find any staff to serve him on the afternoon of the attack. Walking through the shop he found the eight shop assistants - all of them obviously Muslims - crowded around a TV set at the back of the shop, laughing and shaking hands as they watched the footage of the mayhem. Fireworks let off on the evening of the attack in Stoneyholme."
Last edited by BigLutz; 1st August 2012 at 11:29 PM.
Though do you not know history because when i last remembered it was the Christians that slaughtered millions of innocent people because they couldn't understand the knowledge some were creating and re-remembering, i refer to the witch-hunts, the massacres in south America when the Spanish invaded, when they killed native Americans and when they invaded and killed native Australians!
Not to mention the when many forms of arcane knowledge and gnosis were stomped into the deserts of time and crumbled under away through the first crusade.
IN which the knights were simply trying to defend their knowledge though the Church simply slaughtered them all!
Last edited by Celestial Moth; 2nd August 2012 at 2:12 AM.
Fair enuf bro and i sense your remorse within your words, but when it comes to comparing one way of life to another simply trying to get moral leverage? No one can do that simply because they compare and have negative intentions while doing so.
I understand that in some cases people just want to share and help others understand through multiple means though obviously their is a right way and a wrong way of doing that, and blowing up some buildings is defiantly the wrong way.
Though most Muslims dont deserve this type of disrespect because Islamaphobia is a very ridicules attempt to legalize religious discrimination..
It's kind of frustrating, because nobody here was doing that, but it's as if people were combing what they said in an effort to see if they even implied it, because they were too nervous that speaking bluntly was being prejudiced. A number of people here just want to point out that Muslim extremists are a valid threat regardless of the fact that not all terrorists are Muslim extremists. (And by extension, Bachmann echoes a fear that people genuinely have, even if she did so in a sloppy and politically suspect way.) At some point policing people's sentiments to make sure they aren't McCarthy-esque gets ridiculous. Do we have to list all the religions that were involved in wars every time we mention Muslim extremism?
Last edited by CSolarstorm; 2nd August 2012 at 2:39 AM.
If Anders killed all those people in the name of Christianity, it would have been Christian terrorism.
Exactly. I am well aware that not all Muslims are terrorist. I would be unfathomably stupid if I did believe that. My point was that Islamic terrorism (and radical Islam as a whole) is a very real threat. By calling it Islamophobia people are suggesting that this fear is completely ridiculous. Why don't you try telling someone who survived 9/11 that their fear of radical Islam in unfounded? That would be like telling a Jew who survived the holocaust that they have no reason to fear Nazism.Originally Posted by SunnyC
How right you are. The whole reason I'm an Atheist is because I study history and intently watch the news. After reading about all the blood spilt in the name of religion I couldn't possibly have anything to do with it (not that I am against people who are religious). I know some people are able to put that stuff behind them and accept religion for its peaceful qualities. I however, am incapable of forgiving something as terrible as the deaths, often brutal, of countless lives. I can understand where this lust for blood comes from.Originally Posted by Silver Soul
If you look at the foundation of the worlds two most popular religions (Christianity and Islam) it isn't hard to see why they are the root of the vast majority of war and violence in Earth's past (since their creation). The very backbone of those religions is that there is one God. Hypothetically, there would be no space for another religion. While some people are moderate enough to ignore this, others take this seriously. Therefore they feel the need to exterminate those who will not accept their "one true God".
On the topic of the Crusades, they were not a religious conquest. The Crusades had the goal of capturing the "Holy Land", not exterminating other religions/spreading theirs (although that was a bi-product. However, in the past their have been two Jihads - Jihad being holy war in the name of Islam. The first Jihads goal was to spread Islam - and eliminate other religions - beyond the reaches of Saudi Arabia and into other parts of Arabia. The second Jihad spread Islam into Africa, east Asia, and parts of Europe. A fair few scholars think what is happening now is the third Jihad - since radical Muslim Imams say it is. So the Crusades are not really comparable with violence with the sole purpose of spreading Islam.
FC: 1463 5647 1777
Come check out my Trade Shop!!!
Getting back on topic, found this funny article. You know what inspired Backmann for these accusations? Ask Frank Gaffney who plans to discredit Grover Norquist with Muslim Brotherhood accusations.
Since we are talking about wars, (or, were.), one thing to keep in mind, about wars, and the such involving religion, remember, no matter the excuse, those people did do terrible things. Just because people, even a large group of people, do an act of injustice, for their own beliefs, does not actually reflect the belief said, everyone who believes in it, or the like. Any religion can get a radical in there, and screw things up for others who dont believe the same thing. Before judging a belief, dont judge it on the people, (If I did, I would not be a Christian)(Also, DOES not mean all the people are doing bad things, just humans look at the bad people first, before seeing that they could be a minority.) and dont judge it on emotions(eg. I believe in God because church felt good!, I dont believe because things suck now!). We should all agree, even though we understand why someone believes what they believe, that beliefs should be based on logic, and not, emotions.
Just felt like putting that bit of information on this. You all seem like good people, just trying to contribute why someone should believe in something, if someone found t hepful, or saw flaws in this statement, pleas, tell me!
Sorry about my username to fellow Christians, made it when I was too young to know what it meant, and I really dont feel like making a new account.
I believe in God. I have faith in Him. No, I am not an intolerant, logic-less, religious, freak. I believe in evidence, history, and logic. I respect others for their beliefs, even though neither of us think the other is right.
LOLOLOLO christian cant prove god, dumb logic less weirdo
Please, at least attempt to show your evidence for your conclusion, instead of, like the above, showing your conclusion without evidence.
LOLOLOL atheist that believes in evolution cant prove it without a doubt is real
That'll be my dumbdowned, evidence less, response, that used the first statements logic.
No it isn't. It's a term used by the moronic white guilt lobby and muslims to prevent criticism of their religion.Islamaphobia, is a simple term used to justify and legalize religious hate and discrimination in which would other wise be considered illegal by american law.
Thus those acting within such words are legally exempt from such laws.. Go figure the rest out...
No it isn't.Also, Islamaphobia in which the word would suggest, is a person being scared of an Islamic
[QUOTE=BurningWhiteKyurem;14909044]I'm not going to embrace Islamophobia just because you tell me to. Why would I hate a religion that has done absolutely nothing to harm me or my well-being? The fact that you're spewing this garbage only serves to show how close-minded you really are.
Using that logic you shouldn't hate terrorism. As far as I know it's done nothing to harm you or your well-being. What an incredibly selfish view of the world. If a religion having a violent paedophile as their prophet doesn't worry you, well then great. Yet don't tell me that my dislike of said religion is close minded.
And FYI, I'm not surprised that because of your inability to recognize hatred, that you claim Islamophobia is incorrectly defined, because it's defined as such: "Islamophobia refers to an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims as an identifiable group." So you don't make sense when you say it doesn't mean that.
And if that's not enough, the Runnymede Trust report gives you not 1, but 8 'closed' views on Islamophobia.
1. "Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change."
Islam is in fact highly diverse, and has changed its shape many times during its 1,400-year history. There is no reason to believe that Islam is any less likely to change in the future than Christianity, Buddhism, or any other global faith.
2. "It is seen as separate and 'other.' It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them."
Islam bears strong similarities to Christianity and Judaism, and differs regionally depending on cultural considerations.
3. "It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist."
The point about sexism, in particular, is often used to silence the voices of Muslim women, who by their religious identity are considered unworthy advocates for their own rights and interests. This perspective, in turn, enables sexism.
4. "It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations."
The anthropomorphization of Islam, where an entire religion with over one billion adherents is reduced to a single entity with a single set of cartoonishly villainous objectives, enables wholesale discrimination against the many on the basis of the behavior of a few.
5. "It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage."
All religions, and many secular ideologies, have been exploited for political purposes at some time or another; Islam is not unique in this respect.
6. "Criticisms made of 'the West' by Muslims are rejected out of hand."
The demonization of Muslims allows industrialized Western nations to ignore many of their own human rights violations.
7. "Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society."
This is the element of Islamophobia that often becomes most relevant from a civil liberties perspective. In recent years, conservative politicians have worked to prevent the construction of mosques in Tennessee and New York City (in blatant violation of the free exercise clause), supported ethnic and religious profiling of Arabs and Muslims, and instituted McCarthy-style hearings to root out purported Muslim and pro-Muslim individuals.
8. "Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal."
This enables the secondary function of Islamophobia, which is to marginalize non-Islamophobic non-Muslims from the cultural mainstream.
Some critics of Islam draw a distinction between anti-Islam sentiment and anti-Muslim sentiment, in much the same way that some anti-gay writers take a "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach towards homosexuality. Regardless of the intentions of Islamophobes, however, the outcomes in both cases are fairly consistent (and similar to the outcomes of homophobia): bullying in schools, hate crimes in the streets, and discriminatory policies instituted by elected officials.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Snorunt conservationist was not telling you the you have to have the same feelings of Islam as he/she does. They were simply justifying a fear/dislike of Islam because you so ignorantly said such fear was unfounded. You have the right to not have a problem with radical Islam. That does not give you the right to mock those that do. Many people, such as the acid burn victims I linked an article to in an earlier post, or the survivors of Islamic terrorist attacks, have very valid reasons to fear/hate Islam.Originally Posted by BurningWhiteKyurem
FC: 1463 5647 1777
Come check out my Trade Shop!!!
That's like saying, we should fear minorities because they're predisposed to criminal activities.
Last edited by BurningWhiteKyurem; 2nd August 2012 at 10:11 PM.
Have I told you to do this? What I did was to question your defence of a violent paedophile who set himself up as a moral arbiter and beacon.Then don't tell me that I should hate a certain religion just because YOU happen to hate it. Using that logic would be a quick entry to discrimination and a cycle of hate and violence...what a hateful view of the world.
My view of the world is hardly hateful.
I can't bothered to explain this point if you're unable to understand it.And FYI, I'm not surprised that because of your inability to recognize hatred, that you claim Islamophobia is incorrectly defined, because it's defined as such: "Islamophobia refers to an irrational fear and hatred of Muslims as an identifiable group." So you don't make sense when you say it doesn't mean that.
Oh wow, a boring politically correct think-tank is "telling" me (I thought you were against such things) about why I shouldn't hate a violent set of beliefs steeped in misogyny and established by a violent paedophile. Pass. When I can be bothered I'll discuss those "arguments" and post my responses either in this thread or via VM.And if that's not enough, the Runnymede Trust report gives you not 1, but 8 'closed' views on Islamophobia.
The Bible says children should be stoned. The god of the Old testament is often violent. Hinduism is built upon a vastly prejudiced caste system. The Catholic church believes AIDS is worse than contraception. This is what they state (and before anyone points out I'm being biased in highlighting negative examples and not the various peace and love passages, the negative examples are important to my point in that many will choose not to follow them/ will find them morally questionable). They are not moderate or radical in the most base sense in that they are what they are. A set of beliefs (take out what the beliefs say) unless stated otherwise, are a set of absolutes. What people choose to interpret or follow defines their approach to the religion, not the religion itself.
I'll respect you more if you just apologise for being wrong.My point is if he spewing stuff like this, then all you're doing is repeating the cycle of hatred in which it fuels discriminatory acts, racism and bigotry. Consequently leading to more violence.
Ah the race card has been played. How very droll. Losing an argument? Imply your opponent is similar to/is a racist.That's like saying, we should fear minorities because they're predisposed to criminal activities.
So, BurningWhiteKyurem, I'll ask you again. Has terrorism done something directly to harm you? Has rape? Has racism? Has a stab wound? If not, why do you dislike these things?
Last edited by Snorunt conservationist; 3rd August 2012 at 2:17 AM.