Muslims and Free Speech

clax · Oct 26, 2012

David said:
Yes and every nation on earth outlaws slavery, still doesn't change the fact that there are 900k slaves in America today. You can't just look at laws, you need to also take actions into account. Youre not going to find a Christian nation in Africa that's cool with homosexuals no matter what their laws say. This has nothing to do with Christianity but the people themselves. Same goes for Muslims. If Islam was itself violent, China, Albania, France, etc. would be bloody hellholes.

France and China are not heavily influenced by Islam. The middle east has far more slaves and has been in the practice of slavery for 14 centuries. It is obvious that there is less liberty in the middle east, less peace, less consideration of human rights and so on. Be it the religion or the culture, one influences the other.

The fact that all the nations that execute homosexuals are Muslim ruled countries proves there is fewer human rights under Muslim rule, meaning they do not respect free speech.

there is no buddhist jihad, no Hindu jihad no Christian jihad no where in the past 500 years has any nation waged holy war that was not an Islamic nation. You can not justify their current holy war by saying Christians did it in the past. Many nations did it in the past. They either feel or evolved.

Islam is lacking an equivalent to Renaissance. that is the difference, it would be a cultural thing, but religion is a cultral issue

Cerise · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
Yes and every nation on earth outlaws slavery, still doesn't change the fact that there are 900k slaves in America today. You can't just look at laws, you need to also take actions into account. Youre not going to find a Christian nation in Africa that's cool with homosexuals no matter what their laws say. This has nothing to do with Christianity but the people themselves. Same goes for Muslims. If Islam was itself violent, China, Albania, France, etc. would be bloody hellholes.

Bloody hell holes sometimes take a while to develope. France has had more than a few clashes and we are simmering nicely.
Here's another one...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20106768

Strange though that its always Islam involved isnt it?

clax · Oct 27, 2012

Cerise said:
Bloody hell holes sometimes take a while to develope. France has had more than a few clashes and we are simmering nicely.
Here's another one...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20106768

Strange though that its always Islam involved isnt it?

Very strange indeed.

David · Oct 27, 2012

clax said:
France and China are not heavily influenced by Islam. The middle east has far more slaves and has been in the practice of slavery for 14 centuries. It is obvious that there is less liberty in the middle east, less peace, less consideration of human rights and so on. Be it the religion or the culture, one influences the other.

The fact that all the nations that execute homosexuals are Muslim ruled countries proves there is fewer human rights under Muslim rule, meaning they do not respect free speech.

there is no buddhist jihad, no Hindu jihad no Christian jihad no where in the past 500 years has any nation waged holy war that was not an Islamic nation. You can not justify their current holy war by saying Christians did it in the past. Many nations did it in the past. They either feel or evolved.

Islam is lacking an equivalent to Renaissance. that is the difference, it would be a cultural thing, but religion is a cultral issue

1/2 of China is Muslim (the population is Turkish, not Chinese). As for the buddhists and hindus, who do you think invented suicide bombs?

Cerise · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
1/2 of China is Muslim (the population is Turkish, not Chinese). As for the buddhists and hindus, who do you think invented suicide bombs?

Who has taken the use of such bombs to a new high level?

tecoyah · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
1/2 of China is Muslim (the population is Turkish, not Chinese). As for the buddhists and hindus, who do you think invented suicide bombs?

It depends, During the Crusades, the Knights Templar destroyed one of their own ships, killing 140 Christians in order to kill ten times as many Muslims. Another early example of suicide bombing occurred during the Belgian Revolution, when the Dutch Lieutenant Jan van Speijk detonated his own ship in the harbor of Antwerp to prevent being captured by the Belgians.

Modern suicide bombing as a political tool can be traced back to the assasination of Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Alexander fell victim to a Nihilist plot. While driving on one of the central streets of St. Petersburg, near the Winter Palace, he was mortally wounded by the explosion of hand-made grenades and died a few hours afterwards. The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb during the attack.

clax · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
1/2 of China is Muslim (the population is Turkish, not Chinese). As for the buddhists and hindus, who do you think invented suicide bombs?

Name the last time a buddhist attacked an embassy.

clax · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
1/2 of China is Muslim (the population is Turkish, not Chinese). As for the buddhists and hindus, who do you think invented suicide bombs?

I don't know where you came up with your numbers of muslim population of China, it is morelike 1-2%

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

clax · Oct 27, 2012

Cerise said:
Who has taken the use of such bombs to a new high level?

His facts are incorrect, half the population of China is not Muslim, that is an absolute fabrication.

David · Oct 27, 2012

clax said:
His facts are incorrect, half the population of China is not Muslim, that is an absolute fabrication.

I never said 1/2 the population (that'd be more then the total Muslim and Christian populations of the world). I said 1/2 of China, it's a big country.

clax · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
I never said 1/2 the population (that'd be more then the total Muslim and Christian populations of the world). I said 1/2 of China, it's a big country.

Okay, you meant somewhere else, sorry.

David · Oct 27, 2012

clax said:
Okay, you meant somewhere else, sorry.

My point was that 1/2 of China (the western 1/2 to be precise) was Muslim majority. I never meant the whole of China's population, that's why I qualified that by saying I was referring to Turks.

clax · Oct 27, 2012

David said:
My point was that 1/2 of China (the western 1/2 to be precise) was Muslim majority. I never meant the whole of China's population, that's why I qualified that by saying I was referring to Turks.

Like I said my mistake, no need to keep kicking the dead horse

Protectionist · Dec 20, 2012

a777pilot said:
I received this via the Old Used Up Marines net. I am surprised it is still available to view.

Please view and let me know what you think.

He said he knows what he's talking about, and he's right.

Protectionist · Dec 20, 2012

reader said:
That guy is just Islamophobic and not worth to listen If you are not a psychologist.

There is no such thing as Islamaphobic. A "phobia" is an irrational fear based on nothing. But fear of jihad (violent or non-violent) is perfectly rational, as established by 20,000 violent, Muslim, jihadist attacks since 9/11, and thousands of instances of Islamization in schools, universities, workplaces, various branches of the government, airports, private homes, and the public streets.

tecoyah · Dec 20, 2012

Protectionist said:
There is no such thing as Islamaphobic. A "phobia" is an irrational fear based on nothing. But fear of jihad (violent or non-violent) is perfectly rational, as established by 20,000 violent, Muslim, jihadist attacks since 9/11, and thousands of instances of Islamization in schools, universities, workplaces, various branches of the government, airports, private homes, and the public streets.

I need to agree here...If a religious bent leads to violent action, it is subject to evaluation, critique, and dismissal.

When you declare war on someone elses "God"....you are killing for no logical reason.

myp · Dec 20, 2012

Protectionist said:
There is no such thing as Islamaphobic. A "phobia" is an irrational fear based on nothing. But fear of jihad (violent or non-violent) is perfectly rational, as established by 20,000 violent, Muslim, jihadist attacks since 9/11, and thousands of instances of Islamization in schools, universities, workplaces, various branches of the government, airports, private homes, and the public streets.

"Islamaphobia" would be irrational. What you described is fearing a jihad or the views of an extremist group of Muslims, but not of Islam itself. It is like taking the Westboro church and saying that you have Christophobia (I don't know if that's the actual word but you get my point) because of them.

Protectionist · Dec 20, 2012

myp said:
"Islamaphobia" would be irrational. What you described is fearing a jihad or the views of an extremist group of Muslims, but not of Islam itself. It is like taking the Westboro church and saying that you have Christophobia (I don't know if that's the actual word but you get my point) because of them.

Well, I was only referring to the term "Islamaphobia" and why it is false. However, there could reasonably be a fear and a dislike for Islam itself, and well as a recognition of Islam's (ie. the Koran) simple non-conformance to western culture (numerous ways - ex. genocide, severe misogyny, wife-beating, pedophilia, slavery, rape, etc. - all illegal under US law). In addition, Islam, as a supremacist ideology, is in violation of the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2), as well as US Code 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy).

chris7375 · Dec 20, 2012

David said:
1/2 of China is Muslim (the population is Turkish, not Chinese). As for the buddhists and hindus, who do you think invented suicide bombs?

The bigger question is why were suicide bombers created. We all can say that the war on Israel is the reason why they were created.

Yet they have changed their uses. They are used now on us why? Because the US has gone above and beyond what it was created to be. We are no longer a country who promotes freedom we are a country that forces freedom on others.

Not only that we have become a country that other see as Imperialistic. Which we have we have somewhere around 1000 base world wide if you take into consideration secret bases. This is an empire. We have no right forcing freedom on other countries which is what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So I can't blame the Muslims for being mad and attacking us.

David · Dec 20, 2012

chris7375 said:
The bigger question is why were suicide bombers created. We all can say that the war on Israel is the reason why they were created.

Yet they have changed their uses. They are used now on us why? Because the US has gone above and beyond what it was created to be. We are no longer a country who promotes freedom we are a country that forces freedom on others.

Not only that we have become a country that other see as Imperialistic. Which we have we have somewhere around 1000 base world wide if you take into consideration secret bases. This is an empire. We have no right forcing freedom on other countries which is what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So I can't blame the Muslims for being mad and attacking us.

I'm going to answer this point by point.

Suicide bombers were created by Buddhists to kill Hindus. The Hindus used them to kill Muslims and the Muslims used them to kill Christians and Jews (the Christians took to it as well, Christian terrorists just avoid the suicide part).

They are used on us? Last time I checked the only major bombing attacks (9/11 excluded) were done by Christians. Israel and India, not the US, are is the targets of Muslim suicide bombers.

Frankly I'm all for imperialism, it's when we stopped conquering the world that the world started fighting back. The problem with imperialism arises when you do the conquering but avoid the empire part. Conquering a country just to let the locals set up their own gov't and then leave (or stay on as nothing more then cops)? No, if you're going to send warriors to die conquering a country, at least annex it. By all means let the locals rule themselves but make them subordinate and reap the economic benefits or it's all for not.

Nor can I.

Muslims and Free Speech

Similar threads