# Islam-bashing film sparks fears of violence



## Niteshade (28 Mar 2008)

From the Hamilton Spectator Website, with the usual disclaimers and such:


*Islam-bashing film sparks fears of violence*

March 28, 2008
The Associated Press
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (Mar 28, 2008)

A Dutch legislator released a film highly critical of Islam yesterday, setting verses of the Muslim holy book against a background of violent images from terrorist attacks.

Geert Wilders posted his 15-minute film on a website. Shortly afterward, Dutch television channels showed segments of the film and broadcast discussions by analysts on the possible impact of its release.

The Dutch government had warned Wilders that a film offensive to Muslims could spark violent protests in Islamic countries.

"The film equates Islam with violence. We reject this," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said in a televised reaction. Dutch television refused to broadcast the film, and Wilders had difficulty finding an Internet platform willing to host it.

The film shows statements from radical clerics and cited verses from the Koran interspersed with images of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the United States, the 2004 commuter train bombings in Spain and the murder later that year of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street.

--------------------------------------------------------
The flick is up on youtube: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCrCsTMokTU
WARNING: SOME GRAFFIC CONTENT. NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR KIDS.
A youtube account is required, and age verification requested.

My comments:

It's a pretty damning video with some solid points. Perhaps a bit extreme, but so are the people it portrays.

Nites


----------



## slowmode (28 Mar 2008)

I saw this video the day it came out and let me tell you is it ever wrong about Islam. 

   How do I know its ever so wrong about Islam? Well i'm Muslim. But in my honest belief this man should be allowed to air this video, I may not agree with what this man says or shows but I will fight for the right for him to say it. People in the Muslim world have to understand that theres Freedom of Speech. People are allowed to say what they want as long as its not hatefull of truly disgusting. 

  This video that was created only shows a small minority of Islamic society and sadly enough it does not show the true Majority that just want peace. It only takes a few bad apples to taint the image of the rest. But anyway this is just my opinoin, as a Muslim I believe people should have the right to air what they want. Freedom of Speech is something that everyone should have, no matter where you live.


----------



## Niteshade (28 Mar 2008)

I concur that the terrorist population represents an extreme minority of the Muslim population. I acknowledge that those people blowing themselves up in the name of Allah is a very very very minuscule percentage.

However, when was the last time a Christian built a  car bomb, suicide bombed themselves, and took out a pile of civilians in their own homeland? How about a Hindu? How about a Jew? The video attacks that the belief that the bulk of suicide bombs in the past 5 years are done by terrorists, in the name of Islam.

I agree that the film maker is entitled to his right to free speech. However, this video I do not believe is about free speech. I believe he is directly attacking the Koran, and clearly showing the portion's that dictate that it is acceptable/encourageed to descriminate/kill people of other faith's. It effectively is showing that the Koran is a recruiting manual for terrorists and justifies killing people of other religion's.

It does offer one redeeming thing though:  It further (and clearly) states it is a muslim's job to tear out the pages in the book that dictate these actions.

Like I said, it is not about free speech. it is more about freedom of religion, in the charter's sence, but also the freedom to make change to religion.

Food for thought.

Nites


----------



## slowmode (28 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I concur that the terrorist population represents an extreme minority of the Muslim population. I acknowledge that those people blowing themselves up in the name of Allah is a very very very minuscule percentage.
> 
> However, when was the last time a Christian built a  car bomb, suicide bombed themselves, and took out a pile of civilians in their own homeland? How about a Hindu? How about a Jew? The video attacks that the belief that the bulk of suicide bombs in the past 5 years are done by terrorists, in the name of Islam.
> 
> ...



There are over 1billion muslims on this planet. Yes I believe its a small minority that are committing Terrorist acts. Should they even be called muslims? No I dont think so , there not muslims, there savages.


----------



## Sythen (28 Mar 2008)

A small percentage are actually committing the acts, but wonder what the percent that supports it? Wonder how many sit in Mosques every week, listening to hate speech and nodding their head as they are told how it is not only ok, but sanctioned by God to kill anyone not of their religion? How many donate millions of dollars each year to groups they know or even suspect are just fronts for the people who are doing these acts?

In all honesty, I am pretty sure the minority are those who sincerely speak out against these acts and try to enact change.


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> However, when was the last time a Christian built a  car bomb, suicide bombed themselves, and took out a pile of civilians in their own homeland? How about a Hindu? How about a Jew? The video attacks that the belief that the bulk of suicide bombs in the past 5 years are done by terrorists, in the name of Islam.



Are you being rhetorical? Cause I can answer that - especially Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians! This notion that Christians are innocent, peace, loving people is just as much a generalization as the islmao-phobic one that states they are terrorists. The bible is just as rife with violent acts as the Koran.

The problem with so called freedom of speech is it infringes on other important rights. This sort of video only perpetuates societal, misinformed, beliefs. Look at all the atrocities of history.. we can learn from them that normal, good meaning people, are able to be swayed through propaganda to commit some of the worst crimes in history. The freedom of speech argument could have been used by the propaganda espouser's. Its a dangerous line to walk i know (for where does censorship then end), but this point needs to be considered as well.


----------



## Sythen (28 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Are you being rhetorical? Cause I can answer that - especially Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians! This notion that Christians are innocent, peace, loving people is just as much a generalization as the islmao-phobic one that states they are terrorists. The bible is just as rife with violent acts as the Koran.



Name me a good book that isn't full of violence and killing? The difference is, tell me where in the Bible it says for us to kill those not of our faith?


----------



## aegishjalmar (28 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I concur that the terrorist population represents an extreme minority of the Muslim population. I acknowledge that those people blowing themselves up in the name of Allah is a very very very minuscule percentage.
> 
> *However, when was the last time a Christian built a  car bomb, suicide bombed themselves, and took out a pile of civilians in their own homeland? How about a Hindu? How about a Jew? * The video attacks that the belief that the bulk of suicide bombs in the past 5 years are done by terrorists, in the name of Islam.
> 
> ...



To add my 00.02 or rather to just argue your point. Jewish Defense League? This is a direct quote from Washington Report on Middle East Affairs "For more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States....Since 1968, JDL operations have killed 7 persons and wounded at least 22". Army of God? This is a domestic American terrorist organization which has murdered, fire-bombed buildings and even gone as far as sending anthrax threats via mail. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? This is a Hindu terrorist group which has conducted a civil war since the 1970s and have repeatedly used suicide style attacks against civilian and military/government targets. 

Just thought I would bring some of these points to light, as I detect a hint of Islamophobia in that post, sir.

**EDIT: Army of God is a Extremist CHRISTIAN terrorist group.


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

For example, Deuteronomy 20 contains Yahweh's instructions about war. If a city does not accept Israel's offer of peace and open its gates, then "when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it" (verse13). With regard to other cities, the command is (verse 16), "Do not leave anything that breathes."

You probably also recall that the walls of Jericho came tumbling down, and then the Israelites "destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, and donkeys" (Joshua 6:21). This certainly seems brutal and vindictive, doesn't it? Or consider Joshua 11:20, "For it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses."

After creating a dichotomy between Israel and Egypt...“At midnight the Lord struck down all the first born in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh. to the firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon and the firstborn of all livestock as well." [Exodus 12:29]... then after the exodus the Lord commands all the Canaanites to be slaughtered.

There are tons of others but if you are 'really asking' then I will be glad to debate this further with you... the point being, with regards to these passages, is that they were used/are used to justify conquest of ‘heathen’ lands, genocides and establishment of settler states. The problem with Christianity and Judaism is its border creation... through a us versus them mentality... which then allows for the actions of horrible crimes. In a sense you 'could' argue it is not as explicit as the Koran, but you can not escape the realities of history and hermeneutical approaches that have historically been employed in regards to these passages. Every western religious hate crime has started via a border creation, which is divinely ordained in both the NT and OT.


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

theres also a good documentary out about christian terrorist groups - not Jesus camp!!!!! - but I can't seem to think of it right now, when it comes to mind I'll post it.


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

awww... yes, army of God was one of them... i have my notes at school from a class i took called religion and violence... but unfortately I can't acces them for a couple days. 

A good read, on the topic of the inherent tension in bible for the division and creation of boundaries... which serve as preconditions for violence... the other is something that needs to be excluded - is The Curse of Cain, by Cavanaugh, William T.


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

The lrods resistance army in uganda is another interesting example of horrible hermeneutics: they have been noted for cutting off the hands, lips, breasts and noses of their victims. Leader Joseph Kony has claimed this is justified by the Bible, "If you pick up an arrow against us and we ended up cutting off the hand you used, who is to blame? You report us with your mouth, and we cut off your lips. Who is to blame? It is you! The Bible says that if your hand, eye or mouth is at fault, it should be cut off."


----------



## aegishjalmar (28 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> The lrods resistance army in uganda is another interesting example of horrible hermeneutics: they have been noted for cutting off the hands, lips, breasts and noses of their victims. Leader Joseph Kony has claimed this is justified by the Bible, "If you pick up an arrow against us and we ended up cutting off the hand you used, who is to blame? You report us with your mouth, and we cut off your lips. Who is to blame? It is you! The Bible says that if your hand, eye or mouth is at fault, it should be cut off."



I can't believed I missed mentioning those guys.


----------



## Niteshade (28 Mar 2008)

aegishjalmar said:
			
		

> To add my 00.02 or rather to just argue your point. Jewish Defense League? This is a direct quote from Washington Report on Middle East Affairs "For more than a decade, the Jewish Defense League (JDL) has been one of the most active terrorist groups in the United States....Since 1968, JDL operations have killed 7 persons and wounded at least 22". Army of God? This is a domestic American terrorist organization which has murdered, fire-bombed buildings and even gone as far as sending anthrax threats via mail. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? This is a Hindu terrorist group which has conducted a civil war since the 1970s and have repeatedly used suicide style attacks against civilian and military/government targets.
> 
> Just thought I would bring some of these points to light, as I detect a hint of Islamophobia in that post, sir.
> 
> **EDIT: Army of God is a Extremist CHRISTIAN terrorist group.



Good points. I honestly did not know.

Watch that islamaphobia hint... I don't discriminate. I am religionaphobia. I have equal disdain for all religion. (agnostic/skeptic)

<editied for PC content>


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Good points. I honestly did not know.
> 
> Watch that islamaphobia hint... I don't discriminate. I am religionaphobia. I have equal disdain for all religion. (agnostic/skeptic)
> 
> <editied for PC content>



Just be careful to not fall into the pitfall of of becoming so comfortable with your position so as to ignore the realities of the crimes committed in the name of secular goals... statistics have stated that more deaths have resulted in the name of secularism than religion... and thats only taking into account this last century. I think you should change your position to a humanaphobia - regardless of creed, faith, or nationality.


----------



## aegishjalmar (28 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Good points. I honestly did not know.
> 
> Watch that islamaphobia hint... I don't discriminate. I am religionaphobia. I have equal disdain for all religion. (agnostic/skeptic)
> 
> <editied for PC content>



Then I would watch what you write, as it can be easily misinterpreted and taken the wrong way. Also, as an agnostic, you really shouldn't be commenting on others beliefs now should you? Your particular stance on religion does not make you impartial or un-biased, it makes you ill-informed, sir.


----------



## Niteshade (28 Mar 2008)

I think you need to watch what you write sir.

Re-read my posts, and you will find my discussion is about the film and what it portray's. I do not ADD more information

In fact, I will break down my own post for you.



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> I concur that the terrorist population represents an extreme minority of the Muslim population. I acknowledge that those people blowing themselves up in the name of Allah is a very very very minuscule percentage.


No harm here. I comment that the portion of terrorists vs. muslim is minuscule.



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> However, when was the last time a Christian built a  car bomb, suicide bombed themselves, and took out a pile of civilians in their own homeland? How about a Hindu? How about a Jew? The video attacks that the belief that the bulk of suicide bombs in the past 5 years are done by terrorists, in the name of Islam.


A legitimate question I asked. I also acknowledge later in this thread that I was unaware of these other groups. I stand corrected.



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> I agree that the film maker is entitled to his right to free speech. However, this video I do not believe is about free speech. I believe he is directly attacking the Koran, and clearly showing the portion's that dictate that it is acceptable/encouraged to discriminate/kill people of other faith's. It effectively is showing that the Koran is a recruiting manual for terrorists and justifies killing people of other religion's.


I am discussing the video specifically. Each sentence starts with "the film maker", "i believe he", "it  [the film] effectively". Do not fault me for the film-marker's opinion's or projections.



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> It does offer one redeeming thing though:  It further (and clearly) states it is a Muslim's job to tear out the pages in the book that dictate these actions.


 Again about the film. I am commenting about a specific scene or statement. 



			
				Niteshade said:
			
		

> Like I said, it is not about free speech. it is more about freedom of religion, in the charter's sence, but also the freedom to make change to religion.
> 
> Food for thought.


No damage or islamaphobism (new word!) in this paragraph.



			
				aegishjalmar said:
			
		

> Also, As an agnostic, you really shouldn't be commenting on others beliefs now should you?


So because I am agnostic, I am not allowed to discuss religion? Are you serious? I didn't know that my right to freedom of speech was being restricted because of my religious belief's (or lack thereof).



			
				aegishjalmar said:
			
		

> Your particular stance on religion does not make you impartial or un-biased, it makes you ill-informed, sir.


Good way to slip an insult in there. Thanks. I think I mentioned previously in the thread I apologized for not knowing of these other groups. So this was unwarranted.

SIR.

Nites
<edited for grammar>


----------



## Future Prodigy (28 Mar 2008)

now, now ... no fighting... he probably meant as someone outside a faith tradition you have no real 'authority,' per say, to be commenting critically on it. The agnostic comment was a bit of a low blow, but to be fair the majority of self proclaimed agnostics i have met have fit the category he has drawn. However, some of the most intellectual professors i have at school are agnostics or atheists and have good, well thought out reasons for being so - so, i will not make any blanket statements. My above remarks remain the same nonetheless!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2008)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. If an agnostic wishes to comment on religion, it's no one's business. No more than Muslims commenting on Christians, or visa versa.

As for the rest, you all want to watch how you come across here, and stop with the insults and innuendo. 

This thread is going to be watched very carefully, and any smart asses are going to get bounced.

Follow the guidelines and have a meaningful discussion. If you can't do that, stay away from it.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> However, when was the last time a Christian built a  car bomb, suicide bombed themselves, and took out a pile of civilians in their own homeland? How about a Hindu? How about a Jew? The video attacks that the belief that the bulk of suicide bombs in the past 5 years are done by terrorists, in the name of Islam.



Well the IRA used to love setting of car bombs, in there homeland (just the first group that came to mind).  I think you should do some research before you post next time.


Yes Christianity is a loving Religion  : Thats why the Protestant's and the Catholics have been battling it out since Henry the 8th's time  :


----------



## Yrys (28 Mar 2008)

Article already post here (need merging ? ) :



The Netherlands raises its terror alert level to "substantial" - BBC


----------



## aegishjalmar (28 Mar 2008)

No problems here boss,



I believe that my posts may have been read too hastily and a conclusion was drawn without thinking about what I have said. 



The ONLY portion of Nite's post I was referring too was his quote about Christian/Jewish/Hindu terrorism. To me, that comment seemed very free form and was most definitely an opinionated comment which did not represent the film/film maker in question. This was confirmed by Nite himself when he said "Good points. I honestly did not know". If this had not been his own personal comment, why would he admit that he didn't know what I was talking about? As such, I took this as a very ill-informed question and cautioned Nite against making ill-informed questions.





If Nite wants to use his "agnostic" view to hide behind while creating a thread that in NO DOUBT will spark a religious debate, isn't it ironic that the creator of such a thread about religious faith/belief in Islam is a self proclaimed agnostic? Isn't that a little like a blind man arguing with a sighted person about how ugly a painting is/is not? I am just saying, how informed can the opinion on religion/belief/faith be when it is a debate headed by someone who has none? Everyone can make an opinion, sure, go ahead, but shouldn't it be an informed opinion? Is it not somewhat ridiculous to defend oneself against repercussions from religious bias by claiming one an agnostic? And then defend one's right to have a religious debate in the next paragraph?



Never once did I tell anyone in my string that they do not have the right to discuss religion. My comment regarding Nite's ill-informed opinion was not of any hostile nature, and not meant to be insulting. I apologize if he took it that way.


----------



## Yrys (28 Mar 2008)

aegishjalmar said:
			
		

> Then I would watch what you write, as it can be easily misinterpreted and taken the wrong way. Also, as an agnostic, you really shouldn't be commenting on others beliefs now should you? Your particular stance on religion does not make you impartial or un-biased, it makes you ill-informed, sir.





			
				aegishjalmar said:
			
		

> Never once did I tell anyone in my string that they do not have the right to discuss religion. My comment regarding Nite's ill-informed opinion was not of any hostile nature, and not meant to be insulting. I apologize if he took it that way.



Weell, what other way coiuld it be taking ? I'm puzzled about that one.

Being agnostic doesn't equal being ill informed, by the way ... And if only oerson of ertains beliefs would be commenting on it,
what a strange world would we be living in ...


----------



## Niteshade (28 Mar 2008)

I didnt't know my personal belief system were on trial.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Jesus did half the miracles they say he did, or that god exists, or that Ra, or Zeus, or Allah, or any god for that matter existed in the first place. So the question remains - why do these people believe so strongly in a religion based on these "gods"?  Many would say faith. I don't say there is one at all. It's an opinion. Some say you can heal the sick through prayer. I say you heal the sick by going to see a doctor.

IT DOESNT MATTER.

The concept of religion is to establish a set of rules long long ago when law was more difficult to enforce (no radio, cars, guns etc.). The rules are your commandments, or scrolls, or Koran, or whatever. Follow those rules, and you should live a healthy prosperous life. Break the rules, and you don't. More wars have been started in the name of one god or another than any other factor. Better yet, religion is the cause of nearly 300 years of science lost (and to be found again during the renaissance). See the dark ages for a description of retardedness with religion.

Christianity? Nonsense. Islam? Nonsense as well. Egyption, Greek, Roman, Hindu, scientology? You get where I am going with this.

So now we have my belief system has been tried and found sane....

What was it you were saying again aegishjalmar? Maybe I should believe in Jesus and his disciples before I am allowed to comment on whether a film is portrayed one way or another, or if a religion is right or wrong in it's preaching? I'm entitled to my thoughts and opinion's not because I believe in something or not, but because I am a free thinking, air breathing human being with an IQ higher than that of a golden retriever (and barely at that somedays) 

Nites


----------



## X-mo-1979 (28 Mar 2008)

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> The bible is just as rife with violent acts as the Koran.



No it is not.For examples of this there is a book called "religion of peace?", worthy read.

My opinion on the film is this.
The Vatican did not issue death warrants to the writers of divinci code,and the copious amounts of books written on the Catholic church.
They did not kill the writer in the street,as did a Muslim extremist who killed Van Gogh for a similar circumstance.

I look at it like this.It's like certain families where I come from in Newfoundland.They have a bad name for crime,being a rough bunch etc.However it may only be 2-3 members of a 30 member family that are the trouble makers, the surname gets a bad reputation.
This is what's happening in the world today.I for one don't agree with blanket hate,but the confusion lies with most people in who is who.How do you tell the difference between an extremist and a moderate?You cannot.Therefore people who are scared/frustrated begin to hate all members of that faith.

I for one will admit while I do not hate anyone,I do ask myself sometime's I wonder if that mosque is breeding hate literature and promoting Jihad.Call me a bad person but at least I'm honest.I have 2 good friends who are Somali Muslim,and religion isn't a thing that ever comes up.But yes I do think these things sometimes.And I believe a lot of north American's do.


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Mar 2008)

The movie has been removed from LiveLeak because of "credible threats on the lives of LiveLeak staff".  

Yup, peaceful, respectful, etc, etc, etc. :skull:


----------



## Niteshade (28 Mar 2008)

It's scary where a film such as this receives as many threats as it does. Or the cartoon of Mohammad. What possesses people to resort to threats (and sometimes acts) of violence just because they don't like a picture or film?

I mean this is one case. look at this:

www.toolofsatan.org

That's worth loads of giggles.

Or if you want to see a website that bashes christianity on a fairly regular basis. Yes my favorite:

www.southparkstudios.com

or how about:

http://www.familyguy.com/

I wonder how many death threats They get whenever they bash jesus, satan, or god. 

So the question is: why the angst?

Nites


----------



## Yrys (28 Mar 2008)

U.N. chief condemns anti-Islam film :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7319188.stm


Add :

Film critical of Islam drop from web site :

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/28/fitna.reaction/index.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> My opinion on the film is this.
> The Vatican did not issue death warrants to the writers of divinci code,and the copious amounts of books written on the Catholic church.



500-1000 years ago they were all about assassination and murder. They just progressed.  Islam is stuck 2000 years in the past thats all.

Silvester Stalone got threats when he was filming his latest Rambo installment, you think that stopped old rocky from filming? Hell with that.


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Mar 2008)

I am not a lover of islam. Sharia law etc is barabaric, and to think many muslims are in favour of it, and it even reared its ugly head in Ontario. 

Honour killings, no rights for women, death treats over cartoons etc, now a film. They are just loking for an excuse to promote violence because if they can't fight with one another, they'll find someone else. 

I am way over it, and my tolerance ended sometime back. 

Learned from not rumours, stories and INet sites, but experience in 5 islamic countries.

All while most of that faith sit back, rarely critisize, if so, its piss weak and for PC purposes.

To sum up, I don't care what you worhsip, or where you are from, but when you violate our laws and want to bring in yours with your culture/mentality of tribal hatred and violence, go home -  we're phucking full.

Name me one stable islamic country.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Name me one stable islamic country.



What about the UAE/Dubai? Aren't they pretty prosperous and a top-notch tourist destination?  I've never been there and I have only heard and read about it.


----------



## Gimpy (29 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Name me one stable islamic country.



1. What would you personally define as stable? Just no internal conflicts? Or economic stability as well?

2. I would guess that Bahrain, Qatar, Tunisia, and UAE would at least be considered stable. I believe you've been to UAE (I think I remember from that travel map thread here) and was there any serious instability to be seen there?


----------



## HopefulServant (29 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Name me one stable islamic country.



Morocco?


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Mar 2008)

Firstly, I found nothing wrong with the video, it speaks the truth about the extreme views. Some of us have lived it, others have heard about it.

Are they mad because one hears a page tear from their koran?? Hell, burn my bible, wipe your ass with it if you so desire. Sure its very disrespectful, but not worthy of killing someone over it.

EDITed:

I wonder how many of us (infidels) will pay with our lives, all because of a 10 minute movie, which is 99.9% full of their own words and actions.

Is it the mainstreamers who are crying vengance, or the nutcases?

Silence from the majority of so called happy muslims as far as I am concerned is in agreement with the nutcases.

I have a bible in my home, nothing wrong with that, although I have never read it.

Stable because of money means nothing. Politically they have their issues with radicals ratbags etc. 

We made the UAE what it is today from oil. Without out it, donkeys would be their main mode of tpt.

Either way capital punishement, the cutting off of hands of thives in my view is far from normal. Terrorism is alive and well in these places.

However I will say when they look at us, see the violvence of drugs, and the gangs etc, we must look like Satan for sure. We are far from perfect, but we don't teach 'death to the west' in own our schools, or turn a blind eye to financing suspected terr orgs and worse.

Like I said, I am not a lover of their religion (and their culture), and this does not make me racist, it just says I have an opinion, nothing more. That opinion has been based on my life and experience.  Meanwehile here is some links... 

These links are from the UK and Australian government sites, not some far fetched right wing styte disturbers. You can do your own research if you like, but I am reinforcing my own experience with these...

http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1017170887028

Morocco: SAFETY AND SECURITY


Terrorism
There is a high threat from terrorism in Morocco.  Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers.

Recent significant events include:

On 13 August 2007 a man attempted to explode a small device near a tourist coach in the city of Meknes.  No-one apart from the bomber was injured. 
On 14 April two suicide bombers killed themselves and slightly injured one passer-by near to an American Language Centre and the US Consulate in Casablanca.  It is suspected that the bombers were targeting US interests. 
On 10 April 2007 three others blew themselves up, killing one policeman and injuring another, during police raids in Casablanca and another suspected terrorist was shot and killed during one of the raids. 
On 11 March a suicide bomber killed himself and injured four others at an internet cafe in Casablanca.  Moroccan police have greatly enhanced security and made a number of arrests but continue to hunt for further suspected terrorists. 
In August 2006, the Moroccan authorities arrested a number of individuals allegedly plotting to attack a number of targets, including noticeably Western interests. 
In May 2003, 45 people were killed in a series of terrorist attacks in Casablanca.  These attacks were against relatively soft targets, including hotels and restaurants frequented by foreigners or those with Jewish links.  The Moroccan authorities arrested and imprisoned a number of those considered to be responsible for the attacks, there is a high threat of further attacks. 

UAE from Australia's governemt view

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/United_arab_emirates


Summary 
We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack. 
Statements by international terrorist groups continue to call for attacks against Westerners on the Arabian Peninsula and in the Gulf region. These include references to residential compounds, military, oil, transport and aviation interests. We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the Gulf region. Commercial and public areas frequented by Westerners are possible terrorist targets. 

Tunisia again from an Australian government site...

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Tunisia

Terrorism is a threat throughout the world. You can find more information about this threat in our General Advice to Australian Travellers. 

We advise you to exercise caution and monitor developments that might affect your safety in Tunisia because of the risk of terrorist attack. Pay close attention to your personal security and monitor the media for information about possible new safety or security risks. 

We assess terrorists may be continuing active planning of attacks in North Africa, including Tunisia. The 11 December 2007 attacks by Al-Qa'ida in the Land of the Magreb (AQIM) in Algiers (Algeria), the 3 November 2007 announcement of the merger of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group with Al-Qa'ida, and the cancellation of the 2008 Dakar Rally, all point to a growing threat environment in the region for targets frequented by foreigners or government officials. 

During police raids and gun battles with a terrorist group south of Tunis in December 2006 and January 2007, Tunisian police killed a number of people and captured others. The recent sentencing of those arrested could prompt a reaction from their supporters, such as demonstrations or acts of violence. 

Based on the above, Tunisia could possibly be a target of growing interest as any attack on the tourist sector would have significant consequences. 

In planning your activities, therefore consider the kind of places known to be terrorist targets. These include government facilities and commercial areas known to be frequented by foreigners such as, but not limited to, residential areas, hotels, clubs, restaurants, bars, schools, market places, places of worship, outdoor recreation events and tourist areas. 

Border with Algeria: We advise you to reconsider your need to travel to areas bordering Algeria because of the risk of kidnapping. In late February 2008, two tourists were kidnapped in the south of Tunisia, close to the border. If you are travelling independently, we recommend that you do not cross the border with Algeria. Ask yourself whether, given your own personal circumstances, you're comfortable travelling to these areas knowing that you could be caught up in a kidnapping attempt. Ask yourself whether travel could be deferred or an alternative destination chosen. If, having considered these issues, you do decide to travel to this part of Tunisia, you should exercise extreme caution

Qatar

I had a scary experience in Doha with the islamic police. Had my passport siezed, and I was interogated in a room, by a 4 ft nothing woman (with veil), ha! Nearly missed my flight. My accent with an Aussie passport sent them into a tailspin, as they 'thought' I was some US CIA spy. Idiots. This incident was reported to my S2 cell upon return to the MEAO.

Here is yet another link. Its from an Australian reputable  organisation.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1328166.htm

ELEANOR HALL: Still in the Arabian Peninsula, and analysts say the terrorist attack in Qatar on the weekend was probably timed to coincide with the anniversary of the US-led attack on Iraq. 

The suicide bombing in the Qatari capital, Doha, killed one Briton and injured 12 people attending a theatre performance, and was the first major terrorist attack in the oil rich state.

But while Qatar has so far escaped much of the militant violence that has shaken neighbours Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, terrorism specialists say an attack in a country which has such strong ties to the US was inevitable.

And as Michael Vincent reports, they're predicting that more attacks are likely.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Egyptian man Omar Ahmad Abdullah Ali chose Saturday evening to drive his car into the Doha Players Theatre. The detonation that followed destroyed the one-storey building. Inside, the theatregoers had been watching Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.

This unidentified woman was interviewed by Al-Jazeera television in her hospital bed soon after.

WOMAN (translated): This was the tenth day of the play, which was attended by approximately 50 to 60 people. I was about to go in when the blast occurred. And then the walls collapsed. I think that was the cause of my injuries.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Authorities say it was fortunate only one person, an Englishman, died in the blast.

British Embassy spokesman, Eric Mattey.

ERIC MATTEY: We can confirm that one person was killed. There were a number of serious injuries, possibly 12 is a fairly close figure. The other injuries were minor, from flying glass. A lot of people were treated at the scene.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Investigations are now underway into what was Qatar's first terrorist attack. And what's surprised terrorism analysts is that the Egyptian man was apparently acting alone.

Clive Williams is Director of Terrorism Studies at the ANU.

CLIVE WILLIAMS: It sounds like he might've been influenced by a statement that was made last week by Saleh Al-Oufi, who is believed to be the al-Qaeda leader in the Gulf, who had urged people to mount attacks in Qatar.

MICHAEL VINCENT: Do you believe it's linked with the anniversary of the Iraq invasion?

CLIVE WILLIAMS: Uh, well, it certainly could be. I mean, it was, it seemed to be timed to coincide with that, and it's the first attack in Qatar. So, I would say it's more likely than not that it was.

MICHAEL VINCENT: No one yet knows who supplied Omar Ahmad Abdullah Ali with the explosives for his attack. But Clive Williams says it's worth noting that Ali, an employee of the Qatar Petroleum Company, chose to bomb westerners, not an oil installation.

And he says despite the probability of further attacks, the region's oil-reliant economy is reasonably secure.

CLIVE WILLIAMS: Even in Iraq the… although you get a lot of footage of burning pipelines and so on, the output of the oil has not really significantly reduced, because most of the oil is coming out through the south, through – in particular on the Faw peninsula and through the offshore oil platforms, and that's not been affected. 

There has been an attempt to attack them last year – this is the oil platforms – but it was unsuccessful, so up 'til now it's been more difficult to mount those sorts of attacks, and they've not been successful in doing that.

MICHAEL VINCENT: So, you think that the economy of the region is reasonably secure, despite these sort of attacks?

CLIVE WILLIAMS: Uh, yes, because really the income of the area depends on oil, and of course oil is going through the roof at the moment, so, you know, these countries are going to be doing very well financially.

MICHAEL VINCENT: How many more attacks do you think westerners will, I guess, put up with before they start worrying about their own safety, to the extent that they want to leave?

CLIVE WILLIAMS: There's already been a substantial bailout of westerners from Saudi Arabia because the number of attacks there has been much higher, and so westerners are concerned about, and particularly, you know, people who've had their families there are now leaving their families at home if they are still working in Saudi Arabia. 

So, it's changed the complexion, or some of them are actually leaving their families in Dubai and going and working in Saudi Arabia, because you know, it's next door, so it's not difficult, then you can at least go home on weekends and so on. So, there's more of that kind of thing going on – people working around the security problem. 

But, as I said, in Qatar and Kuwait it's going to depend very much on whether the security forces can keep the lid on things. If they can't, we'll expect to see more of these sorts of incidents.

ELEANOR HALL: Director of Terrorism Studies at the Australian National University, Clive Williams, speaking to Michael Vincent


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2008)

The UAE could probably solve hunger in Africa if they wanted to, they have enough money.
Still a nice place to visit, it was nice being in an islamic country seeing the culture and feeing safe.


----------



## Richie (29 Mar 2008)

foduquette said:
			
		

> FYI
> 
> Fitna:
> Arabic with english subtitles: http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-english-version/
> ...



Thanks for the link! Interesting movie but not as controversial as I would have thought; still the truth hurts for some, I guess.

This movie _does_ make you realise how precious and how fragile Freedom is.


----------



## Flip (29 Mar 2008)

Wes,

Irshad Manji, a canadian author describes The Trouble With Islam ( her books' title ) 
as being an expresion of Arab culture. I believe this to be true.
I think you touched on this in your post.
I have met many sincere muslims who are great neighbours and members of my community.  I have also met a very few potential monsters. In Canada that is.

While, I don't think there is any group of humans that has no blood on it's hands.
There are some pretty dark shades of grey in some parts of the world as you point out.
So - to agree with Manji - Islam has to evolve. The current trend within Islam is not a healthy one, just as Christianity has taken some bad turns.  Today Christianity and western secularism compliment each other and maintain what I think is a pretty good balance.  

The context of all this is the film and it's intended roll.
I think Wilders intention was to provoke a change of mind if not position in the politically correct and loathe to act  Western Europe

When I suggested that no group of humans was bloodless, I top my list with pacifists and PC liberals, who cause harm and destruction, by appeasment.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Mar 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> When I suggested that no group of humans was bloodless, I top my list with pacifists and PC liberals, who cause harm and destruction, by appeasment.



Wow, talk about playing the self-blame game.

I'd start with Communism/socialism and work my way to the religious of all stripes, then the racists, then the colonizers, then the monarchs and way down the list somewhere would be the progressives and pacifists.


----------



## time expired (29 Mar 2008)

I do not intend to get into the right or wrong of this film
however one thing strikes me, in the discussion in the media,
it seems if you belong to a minority group,any minority group,
you can say just about anything you wish about the majority
with complete impunity.When the shoe is on the other foot
however then the wave of criticism from the seemly guilt-ridden
Lefties just goes completely,IMHO, overboard.
When will us WASPs become a recognizable minority and able
to whine about our rights.
                             Regards


----------



## Flip (29 Mar 2008)

> Wow, talk about playing the self-blame game.


Reccesoldier,
My qualifier was not historical signifigance or seriousness.
My list starts with who bugs me most.

The "progressive" crowd choose to be how they are more than the others on your list ( I think) I would put communists as second.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Mar 2008)

time expired said:
			
		

> I do not intend to get into the right or wrong of this film
> however one thing strikes me, in the discussion in the media,
> it seems if you belong to a minority group,any minority group,
> you can say just about anything you wish about the majority
> ...



If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005, and 82% of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving from 2005 to 2050 and their U.S.-born descendants, according to new projections developed by the Pew Research Center.

The Latino population, already the nation’s largest minority group, will triple in size and will account for most of the nation’s population growth from 2005 through 2050. Hispanics will make up 29% of the U.S. population in 2050, compared with 14% in 2005.

The non Hispanic white population will increase more slowly than other racial and ethnic groups; whites will become a minority (47%) by 2050.

Link


Flip,I fully agree with your PC crowd being one of the biggest problem.


----------



## Reccesoldier (29 Mar 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Reccesoldier,
> My qualifier was not historical signifigance or seriousness.
> My list starts with who bugs me most.



Ok, I'll buy that.  But if I wereplaying like that Communists/socialists would still top my list.



> The "progressive" crowd choose to be how they are more than the others on your list ( I think) I would put communists as second.



Debatable, all societies/individuals choose their leadership if by no other means than default/abdication.


----------



## Yrys (29 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> Interesting movie but not as controversial as I would have thought; still the truth hurts for some, I guess.



You're not the only one to think it would be more controversial ...


Relief over Dutch MP's anti-Islam film



> The initial reaction in the Netherlands following the long-awaited showing of right-wing politician Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film Fitna is one of relief.
> Commentators are almost unanimous in their assessment that the internet video is much less inflammatory than expected.Mr Wilders himself called the film
> "respectable" saying he wanted it to spark debate - others said it was "nothing new". Public opinion has been restrained, with no demonstrations or riots.
> 
> ...




Link


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Mar 2008)

Honestly I agreed with the message,and I hope it does start some dialouge/or debate.However thought the editing was kinda crappy.My gunner done a better video up of my troop in texas....with a lot better sound track.


----------



## DBA (29 Mar 2008)

Verses from the Koran, graphic images and warnings followed by a call to action. That pattern should be familiar - it's in a lot of the jihad videos being passed around even amongst some Canadian Muslims. The only difference is the lack of a call for violence. I have a feeling the style and editing were chosen to mimic such videos on purpose as showing both side by side would reveal the hypocrisy of singling out this video.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2008)

From the London rally:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2008)

A few more:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2008)

and.........

OK. I just found the last one in my files and thought it was funny. :blotto:


----------



## X-mo-1979 (30 Mar 2008)

Bloody heck.

The one that get's me is the terrorist woman in Burka holding the sign "your 9/11 is on it's way"...and theres a cop stood right by her!

How the heck do these people get away with it!



....beer cup's?


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> and.........
> 
> OK. I just found the last one in my files and thought it was funny. :blotto:



Is that what you've been drinking from this evening??


----------



## Yrys (30 Mar 2008)

Can't they be charged with something ? Aren't they promoting crime, violence, terrorism ?


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Can't they be charged with something ? Aren't they promoting crime, violence, terrorism ?



- They have a right to free speech, just as we have a right to castigate them for what they say.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Is that what you've been drinking from this evening??



That would explain a lot right now.


----------



## Pikache (30 Mar 2008)

Very amateur production on the film. Clearly no sense of trying  to looking at Islam objectively and it is pure propaganda.

Nice attempt at trying to prejudice the facts into generalization, that average Muslim thinks this way.

Like how Wilders is mentioned couple of times, trying to score political points.

Overall an amateur attempt, and shows what buffoon Wilders really is


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2008)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Very amateur production on the film. Clearly no sense of trying  to looking at Islam objectively and it is pure propaganda.
> 
> Nice attempt at trying to prejudice the facts into generalization, that average Muslim thinks this way.
> 
> ...



Kinda like Bin Laden's internet missives and the stuff that comes across from Al Jazerra. Once again, why can they, but no one else can?


----------



## Celticgirl (30 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Can't they be charged with something ? Aren't they promoting crime, violence, terrorism ?



I don't know about UK laws, but I'm pretty sure in Canada they could be charged. That's not to say that they would be. I really don't know. Freedom of speech my ***...those pics display war mongering and hate mongering. Disgusting.


----------



## Mourning (30 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - They have a right to free speech, just as we have a right to castigate them for what they say.



I thought incitement and a call to the use of violence was illegal/unconstitutional, but I'm not aware of the rules in the UK regarding this.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Mar 2008)

The reason those people were able to get away with it is that the police employed the now established, politically correct non-confrontational practice of legal pragmatism.  

This is the PC practise of measuring the "actual" damage caused by any such group, be they Terrorist wannabes in England or protesting natives blocking roads and railway lines here in Canada against the possible violence the application of existing laws could create.

Our governments (the liberal secular west's) actions have been self-censored, they have watered down the rule of law in order to not rock the boat.  After all what is the harm, so these people vent for a little while...  Surely that is better than a full scale riot...  :

It's government directed and government sanctioned appeasement.  While our troops are off fighting the sick ideology of radical religion our governments are allowing, you might even say enabling the pseudo-jihadists in our midsts.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Mourning said:
			
		

> I thought incitement and a call to the use of violence was illegal/unconstitutional, but I'm not aware of the rules in the UK regarding this.



I think you may want to look "castigate" up in a dictionary.    ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Mar 2008)

I saw the video last night on google. The video depicts the outrages that the jihadists have perpetrated. The video could just as well be entitled "Why We Fight". The jihadists in the world today are making islam look bad. They have used kids as suicide bombers something I am sure muslims living in the west are horrified by. In the west homosexuals are part of society and in Iran they are hung a very good example of intolerance.


----------



## Richie (30 Mar 2008)

*Live from the catwalk of religious outrage!!! Ya know they're just doin' it to push our buttons!  *


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In the west homosexuals are part of society and in Iran they are hung a very good example of intolerance.



I do not think so. It may be rather an example of intolerance of some western minds to other cultures.
It is just their country and their law.


----------



## axeman (30 Mar 2008)

Well in this country its legal to have a political satire of something and illegal to utter /offer threats of violence , and death . So when are we gonna round up these persons who do the illegal act{utter threats /offer violence}? if they are here on a visa to visit this country doesnt that invalidate the visa and thus force them to leave?

 :deadhorse:


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I believe he is directly attacking the Koran, and clearly showing the portion's that dictate that it is acceptable/encourageed to descriminate/kill people of other faith's. It effectively is showing that the Koran is a recruiting manual for terrorists and justifies killing people of other religion's.



It is no more than the author's point of view.
The film seems to be is an unsophisticated provocation. 
One of two. Either the film author is paid for his job of creating religion tensions, either he is too silly/uneducated to foresee the effect of his speculations and has never opened any ancient religious books like Quran, Bible or Torah. 
There are a lot of controversial quotes especially if they are put out of the original context.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> It is no more than the author's point of view.
> The film seems to be is an unsophisticated provocation.
> One of two. Either the film author is paid for his job of creating religion tensions, either he is too silly/uneducated to foresee the effect of his speculations and has never opened any ancient religious books like Quran, Bible or Torah.
> There are a lot of controversial quotes especially if they are put out of the original context.



Is there anything in the film that is not true?  Why defend the indefensible? 

Are you saying that we (the west) should just ignore the problem?  We just shut up and not mention the fact that these people have sworn to butcher each and every one of us?  We should ignore their warnings because the possibility of them living up to their murderous ideal is so slim?  

Where have I heard of that policy being forwarded before?

Oh, I remember, only then the slogan wasn't _*"Don't provoke"*_ it was _*"Peace in our time."*_


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

axeman said:
			
		

> Well in this country its legal to have a political satire of something and illegal to utter /offer threats of violence , and death . So when are we gonna round up these persons who do the illegal act{utter threats /offer violence}? if they are here on a visa to visit this country doesnt that invalidate the visa and thus force them to leave?


It is very legitimate. 
My point is that some western people see freedom, democracy  (in their interpretations) and so on as ultimate goals. It is like a new religion. Moreover, they think sometimes that other countries should accept and follow these goals without any doubt. The reality is more complex and less straightforward.
Each people is a product of thousand-year evolution of its cultural, political an economical aspects. 
In some countries there are more important things that are missing - food, water, basic medications, etc.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> There are a lot of controversial quotes especially if they are put out of the original context.



Care to put these in original context then:


 “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57) 

Of the Unbelievers:  Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” 


I can find more,but I like to start with just a couple for you.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> It is no more than the author's point of view.



Ya, right  :

Feel free to move to one of these countries, and convert if you feel this way.

Facts are facts, and what was shown is reality of the extreme side.


----------



## Richie (30 Mar 2008)

Human beings are equal; human cultures are not. I prefer to live in a Western society where I enjoy a level of individual freedom unparalleled in the history of our race. Islam wants to destroy my way of life. Muslims do not think as individuals; they follow a book written by a failed goat herder in Arabia 1,400 years ago. Islam is a harsh, totalitarian ideology that does not distinguish between Church and State. It is totally incompatible with the Western way of life. By allowing these people into our countries, we are slitting our own throats.
But we must be Politically Correct, so we let the muslims get away with things in the hope that they will learn to like us and become our friends (yep... :)  Sooner rather than later, we will have to wake up and look islam in the face and see it for what it is.
As for the protesters shown in this thread, they protest like this to attract attention; it's psychological warfare on their part. Either ridicule them or ignore them, but don't take them seriously, that's what they want.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Is there anything in the film that is not true?  Why defend the indefensible?
> 
> Are you saying that we (the west) should just ignore the problem?  We just shut up and not mention the fact that these people have sworn to butcher each and every one of us?  We should ignore their warnings because the possibility of them living up to their murderous ideal is so slim?



Wow, let's calm down.
The problem is that someone try to use religion in their dirty games. The statements like yours are just helping them.
We need to keep separate religion and crimes and handle crimes without mention to religion. That would be right.

Do we want religious wars? No, I do not think so.

Now, what is not true in the film?  The link between Quran and terrorist acts.
There is an assumption that Quran is nothing but a terrorist manual. This is wrong.


----------



## VM (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Do we want religious wars? No, I do not think so.



I don't understand. The wars today are most certianly religious in some context. They may not be religious for the west, but they are definitly religious for the taliban, al qaida etc. That doesn't mean we should condem Islam, however, it does mean that the fight is all done in the name of Islam. In my opinion, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan can hardly be more religious, even with the fact that it is not about religion for the west.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> Human beings are equal; human cultures are not. I prefer to live in a Western society where I enjoy a level of individual freedom unparalleled in the history of our race. Islam wants to destroy my way of life. Muslims do not think as individuals; they follow a book written by a failed goat herder in Arabia 1,400 years ago. Islam is a harsh, totalitarian ideology that does not distinguish between Church and State. It is totally incompatible with the Western way of life. By allowing these people into our countries, we are slitting our own throats.
> But we must be Politically Correct, so we let the muslims get away with things in the hope that they will learn to like us and become our friends (yep... :)  Sooner rather than later, we will have to wake up and look islam in the face and see it for what it is.
> As for the protesters shown in this thread, they protest like this to attract attention; it's psychological warfare on their part. Either ridicule them or ignore them, but don't take them seriously, that's what they want.



Gosh!  I wonder what your opinion of the Spanish Inquisition would be.  "Adopt Christ or Die and be Baptised in Death".   Talk about not looking at the facts.  So Christianity is a few hundred years ahead of Islam, does that change the fact that once upon a time Christianity had just as "fanatical" sects in its midst as Islam has today?


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Care to put these in original context then:
> 
> 
> “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
> ...



Just an exemple of putting out of context.

Volume 9, #57 "Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.' 

This is simple description of some historical events and words of Ibn Abbas.
Quran and Bible have plenty descriptions like this. 

A similar exemple from Bible (American King James Version)

"That whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

So what? Must we burn all infidels?


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Wow, let's calm down.


  No thanks, that's the first step to self censorship.



> The problem is that someone try to use religion in their dirty games. The statements like yours are just helping them.


  No, not really.  The people who are helping them are the same people who are protesting this film but couldn't be bothered to denounce the attacks in New York, Bali, London or Madrid with the same zeal.



> We need to keep separate religion and crimes and handle crimes without mention to religion. That would be right.


  No we don't.  We need for the people who claim that their religion is peaceful and tolerant and respectful of the rights of others to crush the hate and fanaticism that is being fermented by, in and with the tacit or at least implied approval of every single Muslim that has ever heard an Imam call for the destruction of Israel or the subjugation of the west and done nothing.



> Do we want religious wars? No, I do not think so.



Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.



> Now, what is not true in the film?  The link between Quran and terrorist acts.
> There is an assumption that Quran is nothing but a terrorist manual. This is wrong.



The Quran is used by each and every Islamic terrorist to justify his actions.  And those actions are not anywhere near as strongly condemned as this 15 minute film has been.

Take a good hard look at the pictures Recceguy posted.

If you want to close your eyes and cover your ears and ignore the proven link between radical Islam the Quran and Islamic terrorists then go ahead, but don't think to stop me from pointing out just how idiotic that dismissal of reason is.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2008)

Unfortunately, one of those religions mentioned below seems to be evolving; the other -- not so much.

One now sees Christians rising up and stating that "thou shall not kill" ...

The other side seems to be silent on that topic ... and I think that's the whole _point_ of the film in the first place.

Why are the majority of peace-loving Muslims not speaking out with their millions of voices? Why the silence...


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Just an exemple of putting out of context.
> 
> Volume 9, #57 "Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'
> 
> ...



Well, it seems that over the ages Christians have realized the folly of those words and have reached "more reasonable" and "peaceful" ways of living with others.  Fanatical Islamic Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have not come to the same level of reasoning over the same passage of time.  The restrictions placed on education in many cultures, not just religions, creates these fanatics who act out of "blind faith" in what they are taught by their teachers.  They become pawns of one of many different ideologies that spread hatred.

The moderates who allow any religious or philosophical teaching to preach hatred are just as guilty in their silence as those who would commit hate crimes against humanity.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Why are the majority of peace-loving Muslims not speaking out with their millions of voices? Why the silence...



There is no silence. Muslim leaders regularly condemn terrorist attacks.
It is important to understand that Islamic community has no one centralized leader like a Catholic pope who can officially emit public releases.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The moderates who allow any religious or philosophical teaching to preach hatred are just as guilty in their silence as those who would commit hate crimes against humanity.



It is a very large assumption. 
I assume you are Christian. 
Are coming to manifestation to denounce crimes every time a Christian fanatic kills someone?
Are you considering guilty yourself for these crimes?


----------



## midgetcop (30 Mar 2008)

Those are some of the scariest pictures I've seen in a long time. Not entirely surprised, but disturbed....quite.  

Here's my stupid question for the day (don't mind me folks, I'm the ignorant agnostic): why the obsession with those who *aren't* part of your religion?? i.e. this whole idea of either exterminating or converting everyone else. Man, if I was devoutly religious I'd be pretty pleased with myself that I had everything figured out and everyone else was going to hell (or wherever the religion dictates). 

I just can't wrap my head around these things.


----------



## midgetcop (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> There is no silence. Muslim leaders regularly condemn terrorist attacks.
> It is important to understand that Islamic community has no one centralized leader like a Catholic pope who can officially emit public releases.



It's also not nearly as exciting in print or as a sound byte.


----------



## Richie (30 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Gosh!  I wonder what your opinion of the Spanish Inquisition would be.  "Adopt Christ or Die and be Baptised in Death".   Talk about not looking at the facts.  So Christianity is a few hundred years ahead of Islam, does that change the fact that once upon a time Christianity had just as "fanatical" sects in its midst as Islam has today?



I'm an atheist. I don't distinguish between the torture, mutilation and murder committed in Christ's name from that done in Mohammed's name. I've looked at the world around me and what I see is that religion kills. Religion is like a childhood disease that Humanity is suffering from, once we mature as a species then religion will wither on the vine. 

The Spanish Inquisition was the Catholic Church's attempt to stamp out Free Speech and Free Thought and to exert political control through the systematic use of terror and oppression; this is no different than what islam is trying to do today. I see no difference between the two.

Religion is the cancer, freedom is the answer.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

the_midge said:
			
		

> Those are some of the scariest pictures I've seen in a long time. Not entirely surprised, but disturbed....quite.
> 
> Here's my stupid question for the day (don't mind me folks, I'm the ignorant agnostic): why the obsession with those who *aren't* part of your religion??



In middle ages "religon" was equal "control". 
That is main reason of religious expansionism and forced baptism that was practiced in these times.

Now some extremists try to cover their intentions with these old-day principles.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> It is a very large assumption.
> I assume you are Christian.
> Are coming to manifestation to denounce crimes every time a Christian fanatic kills someone?
> Are you considering guilty yourself for these crimes?



 ??? Excuse me?  Obviously you pay little attention to history.  You are no doubt bound then to make the same mistakes over again.  

I would say that Christians have done quite a lot at improving their attitudes in the last Century.  Perhaps you may remember a person by the name of Hitler and some of his gang of followers.  Did "The Christians" of the 1940's and 1950's let his kind off without paying for their crimes?  I suppose you have heard of the Neo Nazi organizations around the world that have been closed down and members prosecuted.  I suppose you also have heard of what has happened to the KKK in the US of A.  I could go on and on, with references that debunk your above statements.  

I take your comments as an insult to my intelligence, and the total lack of education on your part.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ??? Excuse me?


There is no insult. There is a question.

Do Christians manifest loudly their protests every time a fanatic naming itself "Christian" kills some one?
No, they don't. Why are you blaming and expecting something other from muslims?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> There is no insult. There is a question.
> 
> Do Christians manifest loudly their protests every time a fanatic naming itself "Christian" kills some one?
> No, they don't. Why are you blaming and expecting something other from muslims?



Again, I say "EXCUSE ME!"

You do insult me.  You don't read what is posted.  That; or you wish to ignore what doesn't agree with you.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Mar 2008)

George, its obvious that flanker's mind is brainwashed, and he favours the other side.

We can't change his views. He thinks he is right

Its his type that scare me, right here in our own countries.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Again, I say "EXCUSE ME!"
> You do insult me.  You don't read what is posted.  That; or you wish to ignore what doesn't agree with you.


You seem to pretend that Islam countries do not evolve.
They develop as well. As an example, in some Muslim countries rights of vote for women was permitted earlier that in several Eropean countries and Canada. Several countries become secular states in 20th century.
However, I should also note that 2 of them with help of United States have been converted recently back into religous states.
They are Iran (1979) and Iraq (2005).


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> George, its obvious that flanker's mind is brainwashed, and he favours the other side.
> 
> We can't change his views. He thinks he is right
> 
> ...



Well said Wes

Well Flanker, Religion has been used by a number of dictators as a form of control; and when I look at the middle east, thats what I see.

I am not religious, (tho I do have my religion on my ID disks), IMO actions speak louder then words; so when someone feeds me that Islam is a peaceful religion, I say BS.  Why you ask, because when I look back through history (the crusades onward), all I see in Islam is violence; among there own people or trying to spread there control over other countries (turkey for example).  So if it is so peaceful, why do they need to kill everyone that dosen't share there beleafes, instead of learn the word TOLERANCE?  

just my 2 cents worth


----------



## DBA (30 Mar 2008)

Richie said:
			
		

> I'm an atheist. I don't distinguish between the torture, mutilation and murder committed in Christ's name from that done in Mohammed's name. I've looked at the world around me and what I see is that religion kills. Religion is like a childhood disease that Humanity is suffering from, once we mature as a species then religion will wither on the vine.
> 
> The Spanish Inquisition was the Catholic Church's attempt to stamp out Free Speech and Free Thought and to exert political control through the systematic use of terror and oppression; this is no different than what Islam is trying to do today. I see no difference between the two.
> 
> Religion is the cancer, freedom is the answer.



Various atheist movements have done just as bad. Mao's cultural revolution in China, Stalin's gulags/purges in Russia, Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia and on and on and on. The cancer is totalitarian and undemocratic states. The answer is embodied in the US Constitution. Things like limited government, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the rule of law under which all are equal, the right to due process and the right to petition the government. I don't think it's an accident that countries that embody these principles the most are also the most prosperous and those that don't follow any of them are much less prosperous.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> You seem to pretend that Islam countries do not evolve.
> They develop as well. As an exemple, in some Muslim countries rights of vote for women was permitted earlier that in several Eropean countries and Canada. Several countries become secular states in 20th century.
> However, I should also note that 2 of them with help of United States have been converted recently back into religous states.
> They are Iran (1979) and Iraq (2005).



Because Saddam's thugocracy was better than a democratically established Islamic republic?  What are you smoking.  

You realize of course that you could as easily call the United States the Christian republic of the United States of America in that law in the USA, and the rest of the western world for that matter, is based exclusively upon the moral code found in Christian religious tradition.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

DBA said:
			
		

> I don't think it's an accident that countries that embody these principles the most are also the most prosperous and those that don't follow any of them are much less prosperous.



You mix the cause and consequences.
The country that reach a level of economic development becomes democratic.
Not the inverse. Economy is the basis of political system.

So as long as economy is poor and ruined, democracy cannot appear and stay long time.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> You seem to pretend that Islam countries do not evolve.



Islam at one time was at the leading edge of civilization.  It had produced many leading theologians, scientists, philosophers and artists long before Christianity did in Rome.  Then Christianity caught up to and left the Muslim world in a cloud of dust.  You have stated that Iran and Iraq were leaders their day.  Both, however, turned on each other in the last Century.  Lebanon was once known as the "Paris of the Mediterranean".  Look what Religious zealots have done to all of these nations.  For all the advances that were made, fundamentalists have turned back the clock by centuries.  They are taking all of Islam back into the Dark Ages.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Because Saddam's thugocracy was better than a democratically established Islamic republic?  What are you smoking.



I am smoking the new iraqi Constitution that establishes Islam as the official state religion and obligates all law to be compliant to Islam rules. I have not seen anything similar in US Constitution.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Look what Religious zealots have done to all of these nations.  For all the advances that were made, fundamentalists have turned back the clock by centuries.  They are taking all of Islam back into the Dark Ages.


One should not forget that the majority of these countries were colonies of West for centuries and gained independence not so long ago. So I am not so sure about causes of underdevelopment.  :

Iraq - 1932
Indonesia - 1945
Iran - 1942
Algeria - 1954 
Morocco - 1955
etc.

It is just illogical to expect they will pass in 50 years the 300-year path of western development.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> One should not forget that the majority of these countries have been colonies of West for centuries and gained independence not so long ago. So I am not so sure about causes of underdevelopment.  :
> 
> Iraq - 1932
> Indonesia - 1945
> ...



 :

Once again with the "I'm a poor visible minority" BS.  Frankly, I don't buy any of that BS.  I have to put up with that too much on a daily basis.  People who don't have the skills, or knowledge, or aptitude, or work ethic, or the morals to do the job right, or whatever; who try to cover their shortcomings by pulling out the RACE CARD.  Bull.  Don't hide behind that to gain merit.  It is a sign of weakness.


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> Bull.



No it is not. These are facts. 
Do you remember when the history of democracy in US starts? 
Right. 
Independence day, Boston tea party etc. 

How do you expect that countries like Iran, which gained independence in 1942 become democratic in a moment?
It takes some time. 
May be a hundred years. But it should be faster than on the West.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> No it is not. These are facts.
> Do you remember when the history of democracy in US starts?
> Right.
> Independence, Boston tea party etc.
> ...



 :

You are comparing Iran in 1942 to the Thirteen Colonies of 1772.  I would say that this is not even the remotest of even comparisons, but I'll leave that to your warped sense of time and space.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (30 Mar 2008)

What really confuses me is this.
These muslim protestors are saying death to freedom.Now why would they immigrate to a land known as a land of freedom?A land that is built on that principle.
People landing from these countries as refugee's commonly say they cannot return due to fear of death for them being homosexual,or for other political reasons etc.

My question is WHERE ARE THE MUSLIMS WHO ARE HAPPY TO LIVE FREE,WHO ARE HAPPY THE COUNTRY ACCEPTED THEM DUE TO THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD TO BEGIN WITH!WHY DON'T THESE PEOPLE SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH...DONT BRING THAT STUFF HERE!

I think it would do a world of good if some Muslim's who are happy to raise their kid's in a free country,protesting against these idoits.

All I keep hearing is crickets from the moderate muslim community.Which in turn makes me think.


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> I am smoking the new iraqi Constitution that establishes Islam as the official state religion and obligates all law to be compliant to Islam rules. I have not seen anything similar in US Constitution.



How about you read what is written.  The law of the United States is based on the moral code of Christian belief.  That is why there are still places in the US where sodomy is a crime.  That's why in our country up until recently there was no shopping on Sunday.  That's why in Germany variations of the same laws can be found, and the UK and the rest of the Christian west.

That we live that way is no different than Islamic countries living under Islamic based law.  

Is Islamic law right?  I don't think so, are our laws right?  Again I don't think so, but Christianity has proven it's ability to evolve and to coexist not only with other religions but even more importantly with those who deny that it is right or even that it has the right to exist at all.  Islam has not.

Islam is in dire need of it's own Reformation.  The sooner the better.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> .
> 
> How do you expect that countries like Iran, which gained independence in 1942 become democratic in a moment?
> It takes some time.



Are you serious?

You really do bat for the other side! Your thoughts really do concern me.

Ya, this country (Iran )lead by a nutcase who claims there is no homosexuals in his country, wants the A bomb, says there was no holocaust, hates Israel, the west ,etc. He is an islamic Hilter.

A war is coming to Iran, airstrikes will be a matter of time, and I FULLY support it. No way should this country have nuclear power.

Mate you are living in the wrong country, and belong in the dark ages in Iran or Iraq, along with the whole bloody lot.

You are not only defending the extremists, but you also agree with them.

Are you a home grown jihadist, or an import sucking off the jugular of Canada. Your heart is not for the betterment of this country, its for the enemy. You make that obvious.

Shame on you. Your thoughts cat a huge shadow of disrespect on those Allied soldiers killed in this war, the wounded, and those fighting now.

You are a traitor, a brainwashed cancer, who 50 yrs ago, would be hung.


----------



## DBA (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> No it is not. These are facts.
> Do you remember when the history of democracy in US starts?
> Right.
> Independence day, Boston tea party etc.
> ...



Most consider Magna Carta originally issued in 1215 as the start of the path to constitutional government for the western world. It wasn't a smooth road as just like with the US constitution it wasn't allways lived up to. For example some subjects were taxed but not given representation which led to that tea party thing you mentioned.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Mar 2008)

What's ironic is that after the revolution President Washington was faced with $70m in debt.His Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton recommended to Washington that to pay down the debt taxes needed to be imposed - a tax on spirits one of the reasons that the revolution began.


----------



## Richie (30 Mar 2008)

DBA said:
			
		

> Various atheist movements have done just as bad. Mao's cultural revolution in China, Stalin's gulags/purges in Russia, Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia and on and on and on. The cancer is totalitarian and undemocratic states. The answer is embodied in the US Constitution. Things like limited government, separation of church and state, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the rule of law under which all are equal, the right to due process and the right to petition the government. I don't think it's an accident that countries that embody these principles the most are also the most prosperous and those that don't follow any of them are much less prosperous.



I definitely can't argue with your post. Mankind invented religion as well as the various despotic systems that you've mentioned. I'm certainly not claiming that atheists hold the moral high ground any more than one could claim that religion has a monopoly on morality.

As a libertarian, I support much of what I see in the US constitution, e.g. limited government, individual freedom/responsibility. The men who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia did more than just draft a new agreement between the States, they gave all of us a powerful tool to use against oppression in whatever form it takes. 

We all need something to help us get through life; if religion works for you, then I'm happy for you (absolutely no sarcasm intended). I don't feel the need for a god or gods, I would rather put my faith in my fellow Human Beings, as flawed as we are.
I have no right to deny anyone their beliefs nor does anyone have the right to force religion on me. I think I said in another thread that I can't stand people who wear their religion on their sleeve. I don't care what you believe in as long as you're an honest, moral person. I consider myself to be honest and moral (I try my best, at any rate) and that's all I ask of others. 

Maybe the cancer is in us as a species. I hope not. I do have faith in our future as a race of intelligent, caring beings but sometimes I just stop and wonder. Maybe I read the newspapers too much.  

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, religion has always been a "hot button" for me. If I offended anyone by my statements, it was unintentional; I respect what you believe in, just please return the favour.

Richie


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> No it is not. These are facts.
> Do you remember when the history of democracy in US starts?



O were to start.

The US fought as one for there independence from British Rule ending in (1775/6), then as a nation they formed there constitution, that is meant to ensure that America will always be a democratic country (ratified in 1778).



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


 (ref)

Just so you don't come back with something:  The first Article of the US Constitution states the levels of government, and the powers.  The second article sets out the power of the President of the United States, including a cause to remove him from office if the people feel necessary (through congress).  

And then we get to the Amendments:



> Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



and if all that goes to Rat S***



> Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



{everyone should have known it was coming}

US Constitution

and if you want background on the US Constitution 

Now do you still wish to compare the US with Iraq?


----------



## Flanker (30 Mar 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Now do you still wish to compare the US with Iraq?


No doubt, they are two different countries.
My point was that the independence is a required (but not sufficient) condition to build democracy. 
Another requirement is a good market economy. Democracy is not just a constitution or elections, it is a complex system of relations and counter-weights in society. IMHO this system cannot be imported and is own to each country. 
Time is required to build this system and properly balance it.


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Mar 2008)

Flanker said:
			
		

> No doubt, they are two different countries.
> My point was that the independence is a required (but not sufficient) condition to build democracy.
> Another requirement is a good economy. Democracy is not just a constitution or elections, it is a complex system of relations and counter-weights in society. IMHO this system cannot be imported and is own to each country.
> Time is required to build this system and properly balance it.





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What's ironic is that after the revolution President Washington was faced with $70m in debt.His Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton recommended to Washington that to pay down the debt taxes needed to be imposed - a tax on spirits one of the reasons that the revolution began.



Well as T6 said, after the US gained Independence they were faced with huge debt.  So with a 70 Mill debt in the 1700's how do you think their economy was?

I am still not seeing your point


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Mar 2008)

This thread is going 90 miles per hour down a dead-end street. I am going to lock it for now. We'll discuss in the CP the value in re-opening it tomorrow.

Army.ca Staff


----------

