Muslims and western society

I didn't put words in TJ's mouth snaf... opposite. And if TJ and eddo want to go in circles for the next 45 years, I'm game. I can do it my sleep. I don't confuse easily...

 

Mind your own business... go stroke TJ's ego in PM's.

I'll say whatever I want to say whenever I want to say it. Thank you.

 

It just keeps on going back and forth. Like you said you can't blame just one person. I said he said stuff is getting annoying. If you don't agree move on.

 

It does get annoying, but I'm used to dealing with hypocrites, and will never give in. I ain't anyones scapegoat... specially yours eddo.


If reading it annoys you, don't read it.

You've been claiming I'm you for 3 years eddo, TJ a couple months... how about you take your own advice?

I'm sorry hitching your wagon to the TJ express didn't pan out for you eddo. Don't worry, plenty of fish in the sea and I'm sure I'll piss off another hypocrite soon for you to glom on to.. Hahahahahaha

 

YOu both are going back and forth with this ****.

That's what I like about you. Stamina and a core believe. I was an old hippy too. I know where you?re coming from but I dont' believe your right. But you see you and I don't go back and forth with it.. We have respect for eachother. That's all we need for the rest of the crew here.

 

Perhaps when you're faced with 3 years of slander, lies and hypocrisy from morons online who will do anything in their power to get "the upper hand", you'll understand. I choose not to show respect to those who have none for themselves, or anyone else they disagree with.


I am right about what eddo and TJ have done, and continue to do.. and have proven it more times than I can count and will continue to do so for as long as they continue. Nobody has to agree with anything I say, and I sure wont be bullied into agreeing with anyone.

 

My "advice" was for everyone Wez. You, me, TJ, and anyone else that is playing this game.

I don't understand why you appear to be unwilling to move forward, but I should be used to it by now. It doesn't matter who can go the longest- the object of this place is to discuss interesting and relevant topics, and sharing different ideas and perspectives. Right now that isn't happening because many of us are caught up in this stupid on-going battle. Nothing is getting accomplished.


I'm saying it's time to move forward. What do you think Wez? What do you think TJ?

Thank you snafu for your input.

 

I wouldn't trust you any farther than I could throw you.. but I am willing to move forward as long as the slander, lies, and hypocrisy stops, now.



People may or may not agree with my views on violence, but when I say things like "Tell me why it's ok for the US to have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth a thousand times over but not ok for other countries?" and "why is it ok for you and yours to kill people but not ok for others?" knowing full well the only possible explaination is slander, hypocrisy, anger, and intimidation, or silence by those smart enough to know that there is no valid reason other than hypocrisy.

Anyone care to try without slander,anger, hypocrisy, and intimidation?

 

To get this debate back on track, this is how I see it:

Prior to the seventh century, their were no moslems, and there were no moslem countries. Today there are probably 20+ moslem countries.

Now, no one ever said to moslems - here is a country no one wants, you can have it if you want. Every country they have, they have taken by force or coercion.

Mohammed and his buddies murdered Jews, Christians and probably other groups at a place called Medina. And so the conquest spread in this fashion.

From having no country, they now have many, and it is violence that has gotten them what they want.

They see clearly that violence pays. If they think they can win by force, they go straight to force. If they see they cannot, they agitate to win concessions while they wait for the position to improve.

There is no such thing as peaceful cohabitation with moslems. They hate Jews, Christians, Hindus, Seihks, Buddhists, Atheists and any other religious group not their own.

 

good point...

(did I just say something good to sheik? Is he making more sense... Wow.) lol.

 

Then you must condemn those actions in us Europeans as well. My ansestors murdered native people and committed genocide to aquire this land I sit on now.

Great Britain has a long, sordid history of conquest.. South Africa work out then? India? Hong Kong.. and this was within the last 60 years alone...

Just because we trade scurvy filled blankets, beads, and booze to native Americans for anything of value before we kill them doesn't make us any better.

Matter of fact, we're pretty much a British colony that said f*ck you, you aint no better than me..and we'll kill you to prove it. Hahahahahahaha

Friend killing friend, brother killing brother... Brit bloodbath... check it out.

 

ok wez, you make a good point. Just about everyone that is where they are in the world is because someone killed someone for that land.

So, what is your viable solution to ending wars? How are you going to implement it? (this is a serious question. You seem to have down pat blaming everyone, so what are your plans to make it better?)

 

Stand up for my belief that you are what you hate, speak out against hypocrisy, and state violence is wrong, period.

And as wrong as violence is, condemning someone for being what you are and wanting to punish/slander/intimidate/kill them, is off the f*cking chart of insanity.

Hypocrisy stinks and is unacceptable.

No more hypocrites = no more wars.

 

ok, so how will will you condemning the world and all of it's habitants help?

Go ahead and call a gang member a hypocrite and let me know how that works out for you. I think you would end up doing little more than pissing people off. You may be right in what you say, but people do not like to be condemned- especially by people who are just as at fault for what they are condemning others for. So, Unless you can show some remarkable ability to not be hypocritical, your plan appears to me to solve nothing.


Religious wars start because one side thinks the other side is wrong, and they start condemning the other side. Congrats, it looks to me like you are on your way to starting a war. or getting yourself shot when you piss off the wrong person.

Am I wrong?

 

Wez, you don't have the ability to have a discussion on any topic without moving to hatred and profanity, how do you propose to impliment this utopia you talk of? I am not trying to attack you, I am just making a point. If you cannot behave the way you want all leaders to behave, what makes you think it is a possibility?


You see, there is idealogy, and there is reality, I prefer to stay in the reality arena.


To answer your question concerning why one group and not another can have nukes (for the tenth time) because some can be trusted with the responsibility of having them while other people cannot. It is the same reason you can trust a highly trained soldier to operate a tank but an uneducated 5 year old would cause havock trying to operate one.


If nothing else, Muslims have proven themselves to be a tad unstable and sometimes purely homocidial maniacs depending on the day in question. In the beginning of this topc, before it was derailed by Wez, I posted a story of a father who strangled his daughter because she did not want to wear her face covering, it that truly the kind of people and mindset who should be walking around with nukes?


I wish nukes never appeared on the scene, I honestly do but allowing every wacko third world Country to own one would be a much worse situation. With most people, there is an understanding of mutual death where nuke use is concerned so that is why they don't use them but letting a radical Muslim Country get one and they may just like the whole martyr idea and let it rip.


All it takes is one radical, not an entire Country to make that decision.




Now, trying to again get back on topic, I must agree with sheik, Muslims have discovered they can acchieve with violence what they could not do any other way.

Look at how they use the media to win the PR battle even though they start every agressive action they are involved in. Look at the riots in Paris where they claim they must burn and destroy because they are oppressed, like their actions are not oppression itself.

I wonder if people will ever wake up?

 

I think just about every group has a nasty history, and I certainly would not defend some British history. However, let move on from the past, and consider the present only- that is where this debate is.

Neither the USA, UK or any other Western power,or any of our religions is calling for citizens to be killed for adultary, dress sense, apostacy or any other minor infringements. Neither are we calling for the deaths of non believers.

Islam is a force for evil, quite unlike any other religion in the modern world that I am aware of.

 

I condemn no one. Not my job. My job is to tell the truth.

I don't condemn people, any people. The remarkable ability is forgiveness.

You are wrong about me starting a war... I condemn no one and my religion is the truth and the truth knows no boundries and envelopes every human that will ever have existed. That is the only true "religion". Real "religion" has no sides to blame for anything, it is one. If you belong to such a "religion" that has "sides", my advice would be to run fast and far and never look back, it is false.

As far as me getting shot for pissing off the "wrong" person, not my problem. Won't stop me from telling the truth. I don't let fear rule my life.

 

Hatred? Hahahahahaha... What should I do? Coddle you? Tell you it's ok to use violence? Validate your hatred for you? Nope... I'll do what I do, thank you. I'll be long dead when and if people ever learn their lesson. Real leaders tell the truth, period.

I prefer free will to someone elses reality..

Since we've used them (atomic bombs) on other human beings, and are the only ones in the history of the world to do so, obviously we can't be trusted with nuclear weapons by the rest of the world, can we? Seems to me, everyone but us can be trusted with them.. And who the hell decides who can be trusted with them? Those who possess and have used them? Hypocrisy...

Americans ever kill their kids, wives, husbands, ex wives, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers because they "wouldn't do what I told them to do and they pissed me off because I hate myself"?


Certainly not the kind of folks I want to have a nuke.. Matter of fact, no one has a right to have a nuke.

So might an American.... a Christian "religious" nut trying to make the prophesies come true perhaps.. I too wish they never appeared on the scene. They will one day destroy everything.

Our 'leadership" is for sale to the highest bidder... hardly a safe plan for nukes..


No human/s on the face of this Earth has the right to wield the power to destroy it, even if it is, and it is, possible. They all need to go, now, before it's too late. What do you think the US would do if faced with a collapsed economy, civil wars, and a foreign invasion by the likes of China at some point in the near future? If we could be trusted with nukes, we wouldn't need them in the first place.

I wonder too....

 

I wonder TJ... Do we not want others to have nukes because then we couldn't control them through fear and would no longer be the self proclaimed "most powerful nation on Earth"?


What a way to live... worse than any prison you can touch everyday.. prisoner of someone elses reality that might = right and fear = respect. Enjoy it.. I'll not hide it from my eyes or validate it for anyone.


Those who control through fear, are the most fearful of all. It's a fact.


One on one relationship, country to country, same sh*t... a joke of a reality.

 

SPIEGEL:
Hirsi Ali, you have called the Prophet Muhammad a tyrant and a pervert. Theo van Gogh, the director of your film "Submission," which is critical of Islam, was murdered by Islamists. You yourself are under police protection. Can you understand how the Danish cartoonists feel at this point?


DPA
Hirsi Ali: "The cartoons should be displayed everywhere."
Hirsi Ali: They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they're experiencing the shocking sensation of what it's like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn't forget that they're part of the postwar generation, and that all they've experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again.

SPIEGEL: Why have the protests escalated to such an extent?

Hirsi Ali: There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they're exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among ?migr?s in the West. They'll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali

is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam -- and a target of radical fanatics. Her provocative film "Submission" led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The attackers left a death threat against Hirsi Ali stuck to his corpse with a knife. After a brief period in hiding, the 36- year- old member of Dutch parliament from the neo- liberal VVD party has returned to parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She recently published a book, "I Accuse," and is working on a sequel to "Submission."

Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia where she experienced the oppression of Muslim women first hand. When her father attempted to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to Holland in 1992. Later, she renounced the Muslim religion. more... SPIEGEL: Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do?

Hirsi Ali: Once again, the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it's already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled "Aisha," was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch.

SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?

Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.

SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.

Hirsi Ali: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.

SPIEGEL: What will be the upshot of the storm of protests against the cartoons?

Hirsi Ali: We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, "Submission" still isn't being shown in theaters.

SPIEGEL: Many have criticized the film as being too radical and too offensive.


AP
Police at the scene of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh's murder.
Hirsi Ali: The criticism of van Gogh was legitimate. But when someone has to die for his world view, what he may have done wrong is no longer the issue. That's when we have to stand up for our basic rights. Otherwise we are just reinforcing the killer and conceding that there was a good reason to kill this person.

SPIEGEL: You too have been accused for your dogged criticism of Islam.

Hirsi Ali: Oddly enough, my critics never specify how far I can go. How can you address problems if you're not even allowed to clearly define them? Like the fact that Muslim women at home are kept locked up, are raped and are married off against their will -- and that in a country in which our far too passive intellectuals are so proud of their freedom!

SPIEGEL: The debate over speaking Dutch on the streets and the integration programs for potentially violent Moroccan youth -- do these things also represent the fruits of your provocations?

Hirsi Ali: The sharp criticism has finally triggered an open debate over our relationship with Muslim immigrants. We have become more conscious of things. For example, we are now classifying honor killings by the victims' countries of origin. And we're finally turning our attention to young girls who are sent against their wills from Morocco to Holland as brides, and adopting legislation to make this practice more difficult.

SPIEGEL: You're working on a sequel to "Submission." Will you stick to your uncompromising approach?


SPIEGEL FORUMS
Discuss this story in SPIEGEL FORUMS.

The Cartoon Jihad: Did European newspapers make the right decision by reprinting controversial Danish caricatures that disparagingly depicted the Prophet Muhammad? Hirsi Ali: Yes, of course. We want to continue the debate over the Koran's claim to absoluteness, the infallibility of the Prophet and sexual morality. In the first part, we portrayed a woman who speaks to her god, complaining that despite the fact that she has abided by his rules and subjugated herself, she is still being abused by her uncle. The second part deals with the dilemma into which the Muslim faith plunges four different men. One hates Jews, the second one is gay, the third is a bon vivant who wants to be a good Muslim but repeatedly succumbs to life's temptations, and the fourth is a martyr. They all feel abandoned by their god and decide to stop worshipping him.

SPIEGEL: Will recent events make it more difficult to screen the film?

Hirsi Ali: The conditions couldn't be more difficult. We're forced to produce the film under complete anonymity. Everyone involved in the film, from actors to technicians, will be unrecognizable. But we are determined to complete the project. The director didn't really like van Gogh, but he believes that, for the sake of free speech, shooting the sequel is critical. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to premier the film this year.

SPIEGEL: Is the Koran's claim to absoluteness, which you criticize in "Submission," the central obstacle to reforming Islam?

Hirsi Ali: The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures. After all, most Christians don't believe in hell, in the angels or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.

INTERVIEW: GERALD TRAUFETTER