Kill ALL Those That Insult Islam
So said a muslim protester's sign in regard to recent Danish cartoons. I felt the need to do the analysis of the situation for you all, here it goes....
"Islam is a peaceful religion" and we'll kick your ass to prove it!
Screw them, here are the outrageous Danish cartoons. America's "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" has hindered their reproduction for the American citizen. Enjoy.
"Islam is a peaceful religion" and we'll kick your ass to prove it!
Screw them, here are the outrageous Danish cartoons. America's "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" has hindered their reproduction for the American citizen. Enjoy.
posted by Dorman at 23:12
20 Comments:
Kill ALL Those That Insult Islam
If that is supposed to be peaceful, then I don't know what is?!
It is completely blasphemous to make images of the Holy Prophet. How would the Christians and the Jews like it if the "Free" media mocks their prophets Moses and Jesus?
r said It is completely blasphemous to make images of the Holy Prophet. How would the Christians and the Jews like it if the "Free" media mocks their prophets Moses and Jesus?
Jesus Parody or how about.. I will survive
Kill all those MF'rs that created these t-shirts and movie parody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grow the "f" up world and stop being offended by every damn little thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dorman,
I am still waiting for you to name one single concrete step we should take if we grant for discussion your claim that Islam is "obviously dangerous."
What action should we take?
BH, maybe you should have read the somments I left you ach time you ask this pestering question. i can only phrase it so many ways, so many times.
R. Ever hear of "piss christ"? Maybe your ignorance shines through as just another one of those poor downtrodden worthless fucking muslims who belief everyone is out for them when in fact they are out against everyone else. Or worse yet, some middle-class american suburbanite who lacks a real cause in their lives while having their reality spoon fed to them between commercials.
Google for "piss christ" you dumbass and then compare insults and reactions.
R needs to learn to google.
"r" and "bh" :
Can you please take off your horse blinders for a while and look around. Thanks!
Well done with the Piss Christ reference!
I have to follow that up with, Christopher Moore and don't know if you remember how blasphemous people thought The Last Temptation of Christ was. Simply because that movie showed Jesus being intimiate with Mary Magdelene and WHAT? procreating children.
I just saw some footage on CNN International this morning from Beirut where the Danish embassy is being set on fire etc. They were useing tear gas to disperse the protestors.
Peaceful they are, peaceful indeed.
Islam's violent core
The West – and especially the United States – continues to cling to the myth that "Islam is a religion of peace." History reveals this is simply not true.
Is Islam violent
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9:73)
"Those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil. So fight ye against the friends of Satan." (Sura 4:76)
"Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)." (Sura 9:5)
Dorman,
> BH, maybe you should have read the comments I left you each time you ask this pestering question.
As far as I am aware, you have never once listed a step we should we should take if we grant for discussion your claim that Islam is "obviously dangerous."
If you or anyone else can provide one such example, I'd appreciate it.
BH, my comments were preceded with the tag "Dorman said..."
step 1, to reiterate... stop the blind destructive PC ideal of "tolerance" and see it as it displays itself.
you go find the rest
Here's a bunch of words that have done nothing to provoke violence, murder, rape, torture, fear......
US urges even-handed Muslim criticism of 'hate speech' White House spokesman Scott McClellan denounced escalating violence over the drawings, which Muslims say are blasphemous, and urged governments and demonstrators to defuse tensions with "constructive dialogue."
I don't think contructive dialogue is in their vocabulary/actions, let alone the Quran....
>you go find the rest
I tried searching on "stop the blind destructive PC ideal of" in a search engine and got no hits. I bet you're paraphrasing your own words, which is why the string match failed.
The step "stop the blind destructive PC ideal of 'tolerance' and see it as it displays itself" is a change in our outlook and opinions. But what I am wondering is what you think we should do in the real world -- concretely --if we grant for discussion your claim that Islam is "obviously dangerous."
I think you have no plan.
again...
step 1, stop the blind destructive PC ideal of "tolerance" and see it as it displays itself.
step 2, maintain our laws as equal as possible to all and not allow ridiculous litigation to flood our courts...eg, burka wearing women on Florida license photos.
step 3, RE-establish the idea of American nationalism in which any and all are welcome to come here through LEGAL channels and assimilate to our established american culture. This means the end of the self-destructive idea of multi-culturalism. Want multicultural? Come to Europe. Each culture has a country for a reason.
there, 3 good useful steps for cleansing the american problem of islam.
Dorman,
Thanks so much for doing me the favor of reprising here.
However, I don't think that your prescription comes near to dealing with the full scope of your diagnosis. When you wrote that Islam is "obviously dangerous," you did so when you were serving in Iraq. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that your comment was intended to relate to not only Iraq, but the entire Global War On Terrorism. In your argumentation supporting your belief that Islam is "obviously dangerous," you cited many global (and historical) events, including contemporary terrorism.
But your three steps here appear to relate only to changing attitudes in the United States, or at most, among Americans. They appear to have little relevance to the GWOT.
> step 1, stop the blind destructive PC ideal of "tolerance" and see it as it displays itself.
This change in attitude would seem to be limited to the U.S,. or Americans, wherever they may be. But it's not an action.
> step 2, maintain our laws as equal as possible to all and not allow ridiculous litigation to flood our courts...eg, burka wearing women on Florida license photos.
This is two actions: a) maintain equal application of law for all parties, b) prevent 'ridiculous' litigation. The 'ridiculous' litigation of the kind you mention is not a 'flood.' It is very rare. Our courts are instead flooded with street crime, child support, divorce, tort law, and various business law cases. So I think that rather than "flood" you probably meant something like "mock."
Your goals in a) and b) are naturally somewhat at odds, as equal protection under law means that even veiled Moslem women have a right to petition. The legal channels as defined by the Constitution permit the free pursuit and expression of religion.
But in any case, this would be a purely domestic American change and would have little impact on the GWOT. For example, the 19 hijackers who performed the 9/11 attacks were not Americans. How would this step have prevented that? Again, perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that your view that Islam is "obviously dangerous" was meant to have any relevance to the GWOT.
> step 3, RE-establish the idea of American nationalism in which any and all are welcome to come here through LEGAL channels and assimilate to our established american culture. This means the end of the self-destructive idea of multi-culturalism. Want multicultural? Come to Europe. Each culture has a country for a reason.
Disregarding the reference to "nationalism," by which I think you simply mean "the ... nation", this step seems to break down to a) ensure that immigration is legal and b) promote assimilation, not multiculturalism.
The 9/11 hijackers all entered this country legally and using their true names, so I don't see how a) helps us.
While one problem with b) is that we would first have to define what the standard culture is that others should assimilate to, this point seems to have even less relevance to national security or the GWOT. The 9/11 hijackers 'assimilated' by going to gyms and strip clubs, so perhaps assimilation should be something other than mere conduct?
When you wrote that Islam is "obviously dangerous," you were no doubt aware that the vast majority of the world's 1.2 billion Moslems live outside the U.S. Your prescription for changing American attitudes and culture would not increase our national security, nor would they have much impact at all on the vast Moslem population spread around the globe, or the GWOT.
I think that in writing that Islam is "obviously dangerous," you were just blowing off steam, speaking in an angry way with no practical implications.
My contention at the time you made the assertion was that you were helping to confirm Moslem perceptions that Americans are hostile to Islam, and thus providing a tiny bit more fuel to those elements that seek to misuse Islam to promote violence.
I support your free speech right to assert that. However, I maintain that you are merely venting frustration without proposing a way to improve the world.
BH. I speak on a societal and human level. not on GWOT which is a joke, as we all should know. Like a war on poverty or the war on drugs. Jokes.
I spoke TO americans but it applies to all. Look at the danish right now. Europe stands stronger than america by telling the dirty bastards in words and actions to go screw themselves, fear tactics won't supress our cultures. Not in america where we pre-emtively self-defeat in the name of PC.
Sarah. I agree, I am not nor have ever defended christianity on this blog. But it is in a different stage of virility (sp?) than islam is currently. The deepest root is the blind action in the name of religion, any religion in which somehow "god commands this destruction". Hence my Buddhist preferences. Let's not forget that this violent nature is almost completely the hallmark of the abrahamic religions.....
Dorman,
Thanks for elucidating. Your prescripton seems mostly about attitude change. I'm wondering whether you can name any specific actions that you hope such an attitude change should bring about.
Can I break in here just for a moment to say something I missed earlier?
Thanks for the wings dude!
Ok, you may continue. Thanks!
below this text is an exact duplicate of what I just left on brainhell's site:
time to get deep again I guess:
"Your goals in a) and b) are naturally somewhat at odds, as equal protection under law means that even veiled Moslem women have rights. The legal channels as defined by the Constitution permit the free pursuit and expression of religion."
sounds pretty good to me.
"RE-establish the idea of American nationalism in which any and all are welcome to come here through LEGAL channels and assimilate to our established american culture. This means the end of the self-destructive idea of multi-culturalism"
does this mean we are all going to be dressed the same way, live in the same cookie-cutter little houses, watch the exact same programs on television, drive the same minivans and SUVs, because that's already boring enough, and it sounds too much like what we already have. maybe I'm just reading something and do this, but could the
next line then be
"we will breed the perfect Aryan race"?
"Your prescription for changing American attitudes and culture would not increase our national security, nor would they have much impact at all on the vast Moslem population spread around the globe"
I have to disagree with you brainhell, I do think these measures would have an effect on the majority of Moslems outside this country. I think if we did this, they would no longer question that we were paranoid, they would know for certain we were.
"BH. I speak on a societal and human level. not on GWOT which is a joke, as we all should know. Like a war on poverty or the war on drugs. Jokes."
I get what you're saying here dorman, but methinks brainhell is talking about the Moslems outside of this country, the muslims that are inside of this country, who are mostly Muslim American, have not proven to have produced anywhere near the trouble that we are getting from the Muslims overseas. looks like to me that nothing is being done about the Moslems that we have problems with, maybe you can clear that up for me.
"Not in america where we pre-emtively self-defeat in the name of PC."
this comment I will agree with you on Dorman. but I'm not sure that it justifies your argument, the damn sure support some of the things I'm saying.
"our prescripton seems mostly about attitude change. I'm wondering whether you can name any specific actions that you hope such an attitude change should bring about."
I have to agree that we need an attitude change in this country, more and more each day, this country seems to separate itself from the world, but I don't think there is a chainsaw big enough, to successfully slice United States and spin it out into space. so I think we do need to except the fact that we either need to nuke everybody else, or we need to find a way to get along with them.
in the immortal words of Forrest Gump.
"that is all I have to say about that"
look me up when you two get it going somewhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home