First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Ending Islamophobia and Islamic Terrorism
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/15/09 , edited 11/15/09
How come I didn't get notification from you? Oh, well. Doesn't matter as long as I check ED often.


ShroomInferno wrote:


Putting that aside, I think it's pointless to always point out who's got the bigger right in owning the land, because that's not how this conflict is going to get solved, you know. It's just going to further the tensions between the two groups. Do we want that? No. Should we throw out all the Jews because the Arab Palestinians think they've got the right to claim the land as theirs which was before that under British control? No. Should we stop Israel from supporting informal settlements? Yes, we should. Should we put Hamas down? Yes. Etc.


Of course, Jews and Palestinian used to lived together for century under both Muslims troops under Egyptian army and Ottoman Empire before British destroyed that harmony. So actually, it's not because of the people on the land but rather the ones who controlled the land. I assume, in order to conquer Jerusalem and its surrounding, British provoked both side to hate each other, so they grown weak and British can conquer it easily. That's the method that always been used by west colony, using 'Promised Land' and 'Anti-Semitic'. That's why since the beginning and on te other threads as well, I stated it's not because Jews and Palestinians hated each other, but rather because of the colony that were attempt to conquer Jerusalem using this destructive method.

Anyway, thanks for the history lesson. Now like you've said, it's pointless and unnecessary dragging past events to claim who has rights to live on the lands. Like I've been said to other person who tends to attacking one side by making countless threads. What is your solution? In my opinion, they should implement UN GA Resolution 181 to make a clear territory which one is Israel and which one is Palestinian, so there won't be any dispute. Or make Oslo Accord taken place whereas Israel and Palestinian share same lands while Jerusalem being treated as International Zone.
However, just to let you know, both were being violated from Israel first. First, they agreed to implement GA Resolution 181 to settle their people and army. After they have enough troops, being funded by US government, they started to attack and conquering land by land with heavy arms and abandoned Resolution 181. Same goes to Oslo Accord, one of the founder, Israel PM at that time were killed by Orthodox Jews, while Palestinian leader were poisoned in Europe or as they say.

Arabs think Israel doesn't have right because they violated UN GA Resolution 181. That's why, but of course if Israel really willing to end this fairly, they should stop their illegitimate invasion in PAlestinian lands in West Bank, Gaza and other places. Also stop build settlement while making Peace Agreements, the very reasons Palestinian leader, Hamas, would resign from being a president because he thinks there's no hope from Israel. Jews Orthodox also should get rid of their belief that said this is their Promised Lands. The one who always violating International Laws is Israel. Many reports about it, especially GoldStone's.



ShroomInferno wrote:

Ugh,...I really appreciate your attempts at being sarcastic and insulting at the same, especially since you barely made any sense at all, and haven't answered any of my questions. I don't know what was so insulting about my question when I asked what bombing you were speaking of. There were tons of bombings..so I just wanted some political and historical clarity here.

If you've read and actually understood what I wrote then you'd not be asking "Which axis of evil". But hey, I guess it's just too much for you to focus on your reading skills. I wonder if you're not accidentally referring to yourself when talking about some people being ignorant about the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Their rights to live? Their right to step into the footsteps of those evil big nations. Stepping on innocent life to further their agenda. So, they use Islam to give them strength, more persuasion that they are doing the right thing. They're fighting against the evil civilised West. Trying to make their culture, religion, customs, laws prevail, even though quite a few of those are in conflict with the international human rights law.

And that, Sir, pretty much defines what Jihad is about; A struggle. So it's mainly about the "Jihad factor" just like Islam is more than religion.


Maybe because you barely participate in discussion or haven't read any news, so I guess it can't be helped if it not make any sense to you. December 2008 by Israel, and bombing by US since more than 5 years in middle east. If this too much for you, let me know.
http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2111326/Tensions-rise-after-Pakistan-soldiers-are-killed-in-US-bombing-raid.html

They have rights to live in their own country without any occupation from foreign troops. They used to live peacefully and better under regime than under foreign occupation. Now, who was the one who stepped their foot into another country and started killing innocent people, including children, women and elder people? While there's no permission from UN official and no reports that they have biological weapon nor Weapon of Mass Destruction.

As I said, Islam is faith, religion and way of life. And honestly, people ignoring that most Islamic resistance use their faith to strengthen themselves to resist of big nations illegitimate invasion. They call their war against west their rights to live with their own without being bombed by aircraft everyday, not just for Jihad factor, but they have rights like every single individuals on the world.


ShroomInferno wrote:

"Where?" - Sir, do you actually understand the post at hand at all? I think I've quite clearly stated where. And who cares how they're not practising it correctly, how it's not the true Islam? And hey, it's not just "some", it's WHOLE nations that are not practising it properly, whole nations that are being extremist in the practice of their religion and its policies. Islam is not just a religion as it's not separated from state and its politics, laws and policies, it's actually an active agent. So go suck on a lollipop, if you plan on using the argument that it's just politics, and has nothing to do with religion.

Poof, poof, Muslims are not a race, and therefore playing the race card is futile, Sir.
Iran? Is that why so many Christians, and other minorities have been emigrating due to the harsh discrimination, and persecution they were being confronted with in Iran? Christian churches are worthless if there are no Christians who can make use of it.
Indonesia? An other country where Christians are being persecuted, and their churches are being destroyed, and the Indonesian police is just standing by, or some forces are even joining into the mobbing.
Great people, and country, I must say.


It's wrong when they treat religion like politics, they used it to against invasion from west. After all, the big nations started it first. That's their way to tackle west's army. It's like battle cry, same method all armies around the world used it from pre-historic. If you don't know that much, go eat a book of politics events.

Never said it before, or you just put your words onto inappropriate place?
Now, let's look into appropriate report. And not merely based on accusation. This is in Iran, the most conservatives of Islamic nation.
http://www.unesco.org/most/rr3iran.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html Clearly, they're not

In Indonesia, there are more than 300 ethnics live there and people can express their religions freely. I've seen news that mosque and church stand side by side peacefully without any single dispute in several place across archipelagos. I see it myself actual, not from baseless accusations that has been used by west's government, right?
Great method, and ignorant people, I must say.


ShroomInferno wrote:

There are, but they're not so eager about it because no matter in what Islamic country, even if they're allowed they're being treated like shit, and exposed to constant threats.
"Not Jerusalem"? Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel, and yes, there are SEVERAL mosques in Israel that are not in Jerusalem like the Mahmood, Jezzar Pasha, etc.
Err, have you ever been to the Vatican, or at least seen its architectural composition? It's a little mini city in Rome, and could be considered as a huge Roman Catholic facility. Basically, it's like asking Muslims to build a Christian church into their mosque. And like mentioned, the Holy See is a city, not a country, and I wasn't speaking of cities, but a WHOLE country disallowing the existence of a Christian, or Jewish building for worship.
What has that to do with me? Futile ad hominem to detract from the original track. Time to applaud you, maybe?


Where is the people that willing to build? They never voiced it to government. After all, every people have to follow rules according to regulations. So there won't be any dispute in the future. Jerusalem is capital of Israel?, never heard about it... unless that's illegal. Have you ever been to Jerusalem? The mosque there is being attacked by Israel soldiers, and people who defends it are desperate to protect them, thus they were being shot many times like in Al-Aqsaa Massacre in 1990.

Same goes to Saudi Arabia like I mentioned above, you talking to yourself. They are planning on building a non denominational church in Riyadh, more so to please visiting diplomats etc. Remember this is an Islamic country.. You only come to this country if you are on invite.. So if you plan on coming, you do as you are requested in the home of the host. If you go to the vatican, you cannot practice another faith in Vaitcan city, its their laws. Same as in Saudiarabia, If you choose to come there, thats your choice and you go by the rules of the hosts country. Foreigners who worked here find their ways praying and attending mass or worship on private homes, camps, villas, etc. At least Christians were not banned to practice their faith and private homes are enough to do so.......Not only Christians but Hindus, Buddhist, etc.

While Muslim Personal Law is not recognized in the West, the Personal Law of non-Muslim minorities has always been recognized in the Muslim world. Second, while throughout Europe and America, Muslims are not permitted to make the call to prayer (adhan) on loud speakers, church bells ring freely in the Muslim world. Third, the wide spread anti-Islamic prejudice in the Western media is both a cause and a consequence of the underlying intolerance. Fourth, hate crimes are a fact of life in the West. As just one small indication, nearly two-dozen incidents of vandalism have taken place against Mosques in the peaceful USA during the last seven years, not to mention hundreds of attacks against individuals.

What has that to do with the topic? Futile diverting topic to detract from the original track. Time to applaud you, maybe?



ShroomInferno wrote:

Anyway, taking all of this into consideration, then it's not surprising that people have developed a phobia against anything that's connected to Islam, and its followers, and it's going to be hard to get rid of this prejudice. As for terrorism, I think that's never going to end. Even if they'd withdraw all the troops from the Muslim countries, there'd still be terrorists blowing people up because they think that everyone's treating them wrongly. It suffices to make a caricature of Mohammed and the whole dilemma starts again.


Not surprising because of media coverage, prejudiced and having negative sentiment against Islam? One can assume you are pessimist saying terrorism is never going to end. What's your definition of terrorism, btw? Not the one who against foreign invader, their colonizations and struggle to fight to get their human rights, right? Not true, they attacking them because their government cooperating with foreign countries to eliminate them. They don't want to live under puppet government. That's only your accusation based on media biased, and not look into the truth.


ShroomInferno wrote:

How cute, you refute other people's posting of verses by saying that they're "out of context", yet you're doing the same, Tartuffe.

First reason? That's the main reason. And yes, Sir, I've read it otherwise I'd not be capable to cite parts of it.
I'm not attacking religion. And no, I've looked quite deeply into the religious aspects of life. Presumptions about me aren't going to help your case.

To ignore my posts is your prerogative. I should probably do the same with your posts because I haven't seen this much bogus in just one post for quite some time. I'm truly appalled at your intellectual capacity.


Unless you read it wrong, or it's too difficult for you, it can't be helped.
And I was referring to Rwandas people, not you. To ignore my posts is your prerogative. I should probably do the same with your posts because I haven't seen this much bogus in just one post for quite some time. I'm truly appalled at your intellectual capacity.



ShroomInferno wrote:

Only me? So you're saying that the Marine Corps is not happy for having had the chance to grow up in a developed country where education is readily available? I'm pretty sure that most people from third world countries, if given the chance, would want to have the opportunity to get some proper education, etc.

In conclusion:
Go shove your ignorance down someone else's throat, and don't waste my time.

PS: I'm not from Sweden, nor am I ethnic Swede.

Edited: Added colour to the part that's actually directly reflecting my views about the Topic's header.


I was refferring to your post about "Hmm, makes you really wonder why there's so much intolerance though.". Another futile effort to diver the topic, perhaps? Of course, all people would happy to learn if they're not being attacked by first world countries and being put sanctions from begin with.

In conclusion:
Go make appropriate post and don't put your words into someone's post. You wasting your time made history lesson which is in wrong place. And no one actually cares about it...

PS: I was hoping you're a Viking's descent that like to go to war, too bad, because they're really match you. Or are you pinoy descent?
Another PS: I'm not a sir, call me Madam.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 11/16/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

Real_ZERO wrote:

ShroomInferno
Oh, and please, quote the parts of the Quran, or the Shariah laws where it would state that it's a priority of Muslims to protect the minorities. Since I can't help but remembering the verses where it states that infidels should be slaughtered.
.

What about telling us, first, the verses where it states that infidels should be slaughtered?



.
636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Andromeda
Offline
Posted 11/16/09 , edited 11/17/09

DomFortress wrote:


Real_ZERO wrote:


ShroomInferno
Oh, and please, quote the parts of the Quran, or the Shariah laws where it would state that it's a priority of Muslims to protect the minorities. Since I can't help but remembering the verses where it states that infidels should be slaughtered.
.


What about telling us, first, the verses where it states that infidels should be slaughtered?

Or what is an infidel according to the Muslim faith? Because I swear that all these killings done by the Islamic terrorists are blurring the line between their standard of infidels and people that they just don't like.


The word " infidel" isn't in any English translation of Quran, I just copy her statement. Even "non-Muslim" isn't in Quran or Hadith as far as I know , Actually if you read Quran you will find that non-Muslims are not all alike, they could be Jews or Christians, whom are called " people of the Book", non-Muslims could be also the polytheists; who assign idols or other gods with Allah, they could be the atheists and could others.. However there is no such a command in Islam to kill anyone of those unless they fight us, you have to fight:

[2:190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

and when you fight you have to follow the injunctions that prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him) gave:
Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.

And if the enemy choose peace over war, we have to accept it.

[8:61]And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

With regard to freedom of choice, it's basic in Islam that there is [2:256] no compulsion in religion Also we should treat all those non-Muslims who don't fight us with respect and kindness.
[60: 8] Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.


Posted 11/29/09 , edited 11/29/09

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
Of course, Jews and Palestinian used to lived together for century under both Muslims troops under Egyptian army and Ottoman Empire before British destroyed that harmony. So actually, it's not because of the people on the land but rather the ones who controlled the land. I assume, in order to conquer Jerusalem and its surrounding, British provoked both side to hate each other, so they grown weak and British can conquer it easily. That's the method that always been used by west colony, using 'Promised Land' and 'Anti-Semitic'. That's why since the beginning and on te other threads as well, I stated it's not because Jews and Palestinians hated each other, but rather because of the colony that were attempt to conquer Jerusalem using this destructive method.

You might eventually re-open your history book, and look into that again before going on spreading blatant lies.


Anyway, thanks for the history lesson. Now like you've said, it's pointless and unnecessary dragging past events to claim who has rights to live on the lands. Like I've been said to other person who tends to attacking one side by making countless threads. What is your solution? In my opinion, they should implement UN GA Resolution 181 to make a clear territory which one is Israel and which one is Palestinian, so there won't be any dispute. Or make Oslo Accord taken place whereas Israel and Palestinian share same lands while Jerusalem being treated as International Zone.
However, just to let you know, both were being violated from Israel first. First, they agreed to implement GA Resolution 181 to settle their people and army. After they have enough troops, being funded by US government, they started to attack and conquering land by land with heavy arms and abandoned Resolution 181. Same goes to Oslo Accord, one of the founder, Israel PM at that time were killed by Orthodox Jews, while Palestinian leader were poisoned in Europe or as they say.

No problem. It appeared to be a necessary deed as you seemed to be completely ignorant about it the way you keep on whining about the Palestinians fate.
Now you want to implement the partition plan that was rejected by both, the Arab League and Palestinian institutions, at that time? You want to implement a plan that dates further back than half a century? As if the current cartographic situation would allow such a thing.
Hmm, the Oslo Accord became a joke after Hamas won the elections.
Oh, an other attempt at being historically dishonest. The UN GA resolution 181, the Jews agreed to the plan, and as I've mentioned the Arab League and Palestinian institutions didn't, and therefore started to infiltrate Palestine with army units, and started a war, known as the "Catastrophe", or "War of independence", whichever you prefer. Basically the Arabs never agreed to the partition plan that the UN introduced, and immediately started a war against the newly declared state of Israel.
As for the Oslo accord, how is being assassinated by a stupid radical right-wing Orthodox Jew, equalling with violation of the accord? What a bad joke, Sir. The Oslo Accord was flawed in several ways as it didn't disallow Israel from proceeding with enlarging their settlements, and as it was both sides violated it due to a general mistrust, and I'd have to say it was a big mistake of the Palestinians for not having had a legal advisor checking out the texts for potential leaks before agreeing to it. Honestly, I do not recommend it.
Both of those treaties would need to be revised by both sides, and also edited to today's standards of population, cartographic situation, etc. Otherwise I do not see how any of these could be implemented without qualms.



Arabs think Israel doesn't have right because they violated UN GA Resolution 181. That's why, but of course if Israel really willing to end this fairly, they should stop their illegitimate invasion in PAlestinian lands in West Bank, Gaza and other places. Also stop build settlement while making Peace Agreements, the very reasons Palestinian leader, Hamas, would resign from being a president because he thinks there's no hope from Israel. Jews Orthodox also should get rid of their belief that said this is their Promised Lands. The one who always violating International Laws is Israel. Many reports about it, especially GoldStone's.

Yeah? Well, they should rethink because they were the ones violating it in the first place, not even speaking of how they never agreed to it. You know, it's impossible to violate an agreement that was never agreed upon by both sides.
No, no, it should go more like this "if the Palestinians are willing to end this fairly, then they should stop supporting Hamas, and stop with their stupid attempts at blaming anyone but themselves."
Why should the Arabs suddenly care about the international laws which they never cared about in the first place, hm?
Why should the Orthodox Jews get rid of this belief, while the Arab Palestinians will keep up with their unchanging mantra about how all of Israel is entirely part of their Palestine state?
Bullshit, Sir. Palestine is violating just as much. And the Goldstone report is full of shit. But thanks for citing your sources.. Now I can conclude with certainty that your posts always ought to be taken with a grain of salt.




They used to live peacefully and better under regime than under foreign occupation. Now, who was the one who stepped their foot into another country and started killing innocent people, including children, women and elder people? While there's no permission from UN official and no reports that they have biological weapon nor Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Do you really believe that the Taliban regime was as decent as you like to portray it? And since when do these occupied countries care about what the UN says, or about the International laws at all?
But of course, I agree with you. Those wars were a futile act. They only managed to engender even more distrust, segregation, etc.




It's wrong when they treat religion like politics, they used it to against invasion from west. After all, the big nations started it first. That's their way to tackle west's army. It's like battle cry, same method all armies around the world used it from pre-historic. If you don't know that much, go eat a book of politics events.

Which "big" nations started what first? You have to be a bit more precise. You can't generalise this much when speaking of historical events because otherwise your point won't come across, or could be misinterpreted.



Never said it before, or you just put your words onto inappropriate place?

See, that's where I'm having issues understanding what you're trying to get across, but in this instance I'll presume that you're denying that you claimed that by throwing all Muslims into the same cup one is being a racist, so I'll just cite your following words(part in brown, pay particular attention to the part in red):
"Where? Then, they are not practice Islam in right manners. They are just extremist who can't be tolerant to other religions. Don't treat all muslims are like that because act of some. That's racist. Why not look into Iran and Indonesia, the most conservative and most populous muslims in country?"
So as it is, you're being historically dishonest, but that's not all, you even start to deny your own words which can be transliterated into the word "lying". Isn't lying a sin in your faith, hm?


Now, let's look into appropriate report. And not merely based on accusation. This is in Iran, the most conservatives of Islamic nation.
http://www.unesco.org/most/rr3iran.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html Clearly, they're not


What good is a constitution for when the government does not abide by it? It's shocking to see that there are actually people, like you, Sir, who hold the belief that Iran is not engaging in inhumane activities. Shirin Ebadi would wholeheartedly disagree with you, just like any Human rights organisation out there.
Iran's Waning Human Rights
Ligue de Défense des Droits de l’Homme en Iran


In Indonesia, there are more than 300 ethnics live there and people can express their religions freely. I've seen news that mosque and church stand side by side peacefully without any single dispute in several place across archipelagos. I see it myself actual, not from baseless accusations that has been used by west's government, right?
Great method, and ignorant people, I must say.

And there you go again, blithering on in your bubble of delusions.

So, lets see:


"Al-Jazeera Report On Prominent Indonesian Cleric On Jakarta Attacks: Terror Justified Against Non-Muslims

Abu Bakar Bashir, a prominent cleric in Indonesia, has defended last Friday's twin bombings in Jakarta which killed nine and left more than 50 wounded.

In an interview with The Australian newspaper, Bashir said that the use of terror is justified in the war against non-Muslims.

Authorities suspect involvement of a Jemaah Islamiya (JI) splinter group in Friday's near-simultaneous suicide blasts at the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels in Jakarta.

Bashir blamed the Indonesian government for the attacks, saying that terrorism will not end until Jakarta recognizes the supremacy of Islamic law.

"This [terror] will not end until the government follows the right path," he said.

Asked by The Australian whether he felt any sadness for the victims of the attacks, Bashir said: "What makes me sad about the bombings was that it involved innocent people being killed.

"People such as women and children who are not involved in the fight against Muslims should not be killed.

"But the problem is we don't know for sure that the victims weren't involved in the fight against Islam. Even the thought of fighting against Islam is involvement. Everyone that thinks like that is allowed to be killed."

Around 2,000 students attend the al-Mukmin religious school he co-founded and 15 of his former students are said to have been involved in terror activities across Indonesia.

However, Bashir denied links to his school and last week's bombings.

"The connections between al-Mukmin and the Marriott bombing is just an allegation," he said.

He also denied the existence of terror suspects belonging to the Muslim faith. "There are no Muslim terrorists. The terrorists are the CIA, the Americans, and the Australians. They're the ones who terrorize Muslims. The Australians are making a fuss about their victims, but when it comes to Muslim victims they don't say anything about it."

Bashir believes foreign influence in Indonesia, particularly from the United States, has resulted in continued instability, and believes "the Islamic way" will serve as a solution.

"My war is to promote Islam through preaching. God willing, if the [Indonesian] government can return to the Islamic way, we can fight the Americans because those kafirs [non-Muslims] are weak. God willing, the jihadists will prevail."



So, the guy in the previous article is pretty influential in the Islam community of Indonesia, and nobody does anything about him, he still has his privilege of uttering disheartening statements as seen before, preserved without any further troubles. But he's not only speaking about how 'rightful' terrorism is to protect his beloved religion, but he even urges his followers to not fear using violence against the 'kafirs'. Seriously, you'd think he's changed after having been incarcerated for a bit, but I guess this incarceration wasn't long enough for him to change his mind as one can see in the following article:

"Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir has returned to his hardline rhetoric with a call for followers to “beat up” Western tourists and for young Muslims to die as martyrs.

Bashir likened non-Muslims to crawling animals. “Worms, snakes, maggots – those are animals that crawl. Take a look at Bali … those infidel tourists. They are naked.”

He called for signs to be erected across Indonesia warning tourists they were entering a Muslim area, and directing they cover up appropriately. But in east Java, he urged the Islamist youth to “beat up” foreigners.

“God willing, there are none here,” Bashir said. “If there were infidels here, just beat them up. Do not tolerate them.”
I guess since flying airplanes into buildings, smuggling back[ack bombs onto trains, and blowing up subway stations is getting more and more difficult for muslims, they are left with attacking vacationers…"


You see, after seeing what kind of people promote said religion in Indonesia, then it doesn't surprise me having to see such a course of action being undertaken by Muslims such as the following:

"Muslim extremists who are members of the Islamic Defenders Front recently attacked 200 moderate Christians and Muslims who protested for religious freedom in the Indonesian capital, threatening the protestors with death and attacking them with machetes and sticks. Twelve people were left wounded as the extremists shouted, “Repent or die.”

According to the Spanish daily, “La Razon,” the extremists also attacked children and the elderly who were present at the protest. Between the years 2004 and 2007, Muslim extremist groups and local governments closed 110 churches in Indonesia.

La Razon also pointed to the case of Habiba Kouider, a Muslim convert to Christianity in Algeria who was arrested and sentenced for having copies of the Bible in her possession. In addition to her case, seven other Christians are on trial.

The Spanish daily also denounced that in Egypt, two Catholic Coptic priests were wounded by drive-by gunfire against the Monastery of Abu Fana in the southern region of the country."




"Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Islamic terrorists are moving to a new strategy, opting for attacks against Christian clergymen and activists, targeting vital installations across the country instead of US interests, this according Police spokesman Inspector General Abubakar Nataprawira. Equally the threat of attacks linked to the November execution of three men sentenced for the October 2002 Bali bombings (pictured) remains high.

Inspector General Nataprawira spoke at a press conference, unveiling the results from investigations sparked by the arrest on 21 October in Kelapa Ganding (North Jakarta) of members of a new terror group called Tauhid Wal Jihad.

“They were planning attacks against Christian priests and peace activities involved in peace actions and interfaith activities against terrorism,” the inspector said.

North Jakarta’s main fuel depot in Plumpang owned by Pertamina was also the group’s target list. Also the group was planning to bring weapons into the country and launch a six-month mass drive to recruit new members.

Wahyu, who has been involved in various terrorist attacks in Poso and Ambon (during the 2005-2006 sectarian clashes) and against the police, is among those arrested. He had been on the run since 2005.

Meanwhile some people are wondering whether the brutal assault against Fr Benny Susetyo was part of this strategy.

The clergyman, who is the secretary of Interfaith Dialogue Commission of the Indonesian Bishops of Conference, was savagely beaten by unknown assailants on 11 August in South Jakarta."


And to bring some colours into it, lets move to Pakistan: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14259&theme=5&size=A
You'd think that we're in the 21st century, and that crusades, jihads, and all that religious warring attitude, and enmity would be gone by now, but I guess not.

Either way, I could go on, and on.



Where is the people that willing to build? They never voiced it to government. After all, every people have to follow rules according to regulations. So there won't be any dispute in the future. Jerusalem is capital of Israel?, never heard about it... unless that's illegal. Have you ever been to Jerusalem? The mosque there is being attacked by Israel soldiers, and people who defends it are desperate to protect them, thus they were being shot many times like in Al-Aqsaa Massacre in 1990.

Same goes to Saudi Arabia like I mentioned above, you talking to yourself. They are planning on building a non denominational church in Riyadh, more so to please visiting diplomats etc. Remember this is an Islamic country.. You only come to this country if you are on invite.. So if you plan on coming, you do as you are requested in the home of the host. If you go to the vatican, you cannot practice another faith in Vaitcan city, its their laws. Same as in Saudiarabia, If you choose to come there, thats your choice and you go by the rules of the hosts country. Foreigners who worked here find their ways praying and attending mass or worship on private homes, camps, villas, etc. At least Christians were not banned to practice their faith and private homes are enough to do so.......Not only Christians but Hindus, Buddhist, etc.


Again, ad nauseum, you're talking through your hat.
There have been several requests as the Christian population in Saudi Arabia is rather big. If my memory serves me well, then there are over 800 000 Catholics alone. The Vatican, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc. have been negotiating. The Russians request is based on the fact that in 2008, the Saudis were asking for permission to build yet an other mosque in Moscow, but the Russians countered the Saudis' request that if they were to allow such a project to happen, then it would be only fair to have an Orthodox church in Saudi Arabia in return. I thought that it was quite amusing to observe how the Russians gave the Saudis a taste of their own medicine.
The Vatican, of course, too, to fulfil its wish has attempted several times to negotiate with the Saudis, and one would think the Christians' wish should be granted if we take into consideration that Muslims are allowed to freely wander on about with a Koran in their hands and build their religious sites in Europe, USA, Russia, Jerusalem, etc. and can even visit the Vatican with a Koran in their hands without any further issues while when a non-Muslim wants to set foot in Riyadh he has to remove any religious symbols that do not stem from Islam such as Christian crucifixes, or the Star of David, or refrain from celebrating non-Muslim holidays because it's, de facto, considered as illegal, and an offence to the 'host country'. Of course, it's good manners which dictate that you respect a country's customs, but there's a point where this axiom can't be followed any more as the double standards are too big to remain ignored. We Westerners are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, then why is Saudi Arabia being so intolerant towards other religions? We from the West are supposed to tolerate every Ahmed, and Aisha's cultural beliefs, yet when hoping for a 'give-and-take', or reciprocation then we're considered as intolerant, racists, and what not while the Saudis use their wealth to support one Islamic construction, and organisation after an other throughout the whole West without any further qualms.
It's noteworthy to say that the biggest mosque in Europe that has been raised with Saudi Arabian funds is located in Rome right next to the Vatican, and that mosque exists there since 1995, while in Saudi Arabia one can't even wear a simple crucifix in 2009.

Oh really? Do you have any evidence to support your claims about the Saudis allowing a church to be built in Riyadh?

Ugh, more historical dishonesty from you. The Al-Aqsa massacre in 1990, or The Temple Mount Riots was nothing more but a consequential action caused by the Palestinians' attack at a small Jewish group who with the permission of the police were ascending the Mount, attempting to lay a cornerstone for the rebuilding of the Temple. But then the police revoked the permit as a big group of Muslims approached, so the Jewish group was disallowed to proceed with their march, and as a consequence left the sites to peacefully pray somewhere else, but in spite of having seen the group depart the Arab Palestinians started rioting with the support of Fatah and Hamas. The Palestinians attacked the police in a very violent manner, and also threw stones at Jewish pilgrims who were simply just praying in front of the Western Wall. The rioters were so aggressive, and ferocious that they were considered as a threat to the policemen and Jewish pilgrims' life which then backfired at the Palestinians. The Israeli government then criticised the Israeli police forces for their unpreparedness which was an important factor as of why this escalated into such a desperate move. Yet, it's quite clear that this wasn't an unprovoked response from the police force's side as the rioters more than obviously asked for it as they were groundlessly attacking the police forces and the Jewish nearby.
Maybe you should do some research on how many synagogues, churches, Buddhist temples were destroyed by Muslims. But I presume 58 destroyed Jerusalem synagogues is something that can easily be ignored.


Oh, sorry, you prefer Tel Aviv to be considered as capital, right? Why would it be illegal? Oh, so you're also in favour of the theory that the Israelis are illegally occupying Jerusalem. You'd think that the ones to be blamed are the Arabs for having started a war which they lost.



While Muslim Personal Law is not recognized in the West, the Personal Law of non-Muslim minorities has always been recognized in the Muslim world. Second, while throughout Europe and America, Muslims are not permitted to make the call to prayer (adhan) on loud speakers, church bells ring freely in the Muslim world. Third, the wide spread anti-Islamic prejudice in the Western media is both a cause and a consequence of the underlying intolerance. Fourth, hate crimes are a fact of life in the West. As just one small indication, nearly two-dozen incidents of vandalism have taken place against Mosques in the peaceful USA during the last seven years, not to mention hundreds of attacks against individuals.


Personal law? What personal laws are you speaking of? You mean things such as Shariah laws? I thought the UK is a prime example for having allowed a parallel legal system by allowing Muslims to lead their own courts in spite of the fact that Shariah laws are in conflict with our laws. Not even Christians are allowed to be prosecuted after their religious laws. In the West, we're presumably all equal in front of the law. If you can't we can't either, which is only fair. If everyone were allowed to be judged after their personal laws, and be able to refer to the basic human right: religious freedom, then that would mean that some Inkas' religious traditions such as human sacrifices should be recognised by our law, too. You can't intermix personal law with official laws as it poses too many problems. And honestly, I have no idea what Islamic country would recognise my personal law, in actual fact, I'm not even allowed to wear the kind of clothing I want out of fear I might offend some Muslims, and risk a broken nose. To the other, didn't you just earlier claim the following:
"Remember this is an Islamic country.. You only come to this country if you are on invite.. So if you plan on coming, you do as you are requested in the home of the host."
Oh, looks like this ideology of yours only counts when it's about Westerners coming to Islamic countries, but not vice versa.

Actually, due to several complaints even Church bells aren't ringing that often any more, and in some regions aren't ringing at all any more. It's a source of noise which quite a few people do not approve of. To the other, like mentioned earlier, there are Islamic countries where Christian buildings just don't exist, and therefore no bells can ring, and where non-Muslim minorities are being subjected to persecution, and constant violence. Obviously tolerance seems to be a transferable construct, and in this respect, until the day when non-Muslims minorities can freely, practice their religions, 'personal laws', publicly carry non-Muslim symbols, and build their religious facilities without fear from groundless repercussions there will be no respect for Muslim Personal laws either in Judeo-Christian societies. That would be one option. The second option would be that Islam and its adherents should get along with the idea that they can claim only as much tolerance as they let us enjoy in their societies, and consequently they should stop using Western liberalism as a means to force their own agenda on the rest of society, and adapt to our societies just like we're supposed to adapt to theirs.

The anti-Western prejudice amongst Muslims, and Islamic countries is quite wide-spread, too, and therefore we're even.
Hate crimes are just as much a fact in Islamic countries, and definitely largely outnumber the ones happening in the West. Well, vandalism against religious buildings is not supported by our countries contrarily to Islamic countries where it seems to be a common practice to destroy anything that's not connected with Islam. To the other, Western vandals have been attacking several Christian, Jewish, and other facilities, too. So it's not like they're just ganging up against the Muslims.




Not surprising because of media coverage, prejudiced and having negative sentiment against Islam? One can assume you are pessimist saying terrorism is never going to end. What's your definition of terrorism, btw? Not the one who against foreign invader, their colonizations and struggle to fight to get their human rights, right? Not true, they attacking them because their government cooperating with foreign countries to eliminate them. They don't want to live under puppet government. That's only your accusation based on media biased, and not look into the truth.

This passage made no sense at all.
My definition of terrorism is as follows: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
The one you've been describing quite clearly matches with the definition. That's how the history of terrorism started, Sir.
Fighting for their human rights? They're shunning human rights every day, so why would they suddenly care about their human rights?
So, making a caricature of Mohammed means that one is being supportive of 'foreign countries'(yeah, wtf are you talking about, Sir?), hm?
My accusation? What accusation? You keep on accusing me of falsely accusing, and basing my knowledge on 'biased media', and ignoring the truth. You're being the whole time dishonest, you make false assumptions about me, etc. That's not how you debunk an argument, Sir. Try to find a more effective method such as using your critical thinking.



Unless you read it wrong, or it's too difficult for you, it can't be helped.
And I was referring to Rwandas people, not you. To ignore my posts is your prerogative. I should probably do the same with your posts because I haven't seen this much bogus in just one post for quite some time. I'm truly appalled at your intellectual capacity.

So, that's how low you stoop when you're on the losing end. What a shame.
Again, you're LYING. That's what YOU were groundlessly accusing me of again: "You're 1% that really attacking religion without look it deeper."
Then you're intellectually too limited to write your own stuff.



I was refferring to your post about "Hmm, makes you really wonder why there's so much intolerance though.". Another futile effort to diver the topic, perhaps? Of course, all people would happy to learn if they're not being attacked by first world countries and being put sanctions from begin with.

Okay then, so it's only me who's wondering why there's so much intolerance?
Of course they would be happy. Reminds me of two Catholic girls who were on their way to a catholic school, and then suddenly they were attacked by some Muslims, and were beheaded.
Well, they're just as much under attack from the Islamist terrorists. Besides, it's more of an occupation than an 'attack' in that sense. Sure, I agree with you, they were better of under the Islamist regimes.



In conclusion:
Go make appropriate post and don't put your words into someone's post. You wasting your time made history lesson which is in wrong place. And no one actually cares about it...

I haven't 'put words into someone's post', but you've been quite clearly showing to us how much of a prevaricator you are.
My history lesson wasn't a waste of time, it was more than appropriate as your historical dishonesty and ignorance was more than obvious. Wrong. I do care about it.



PS: I was hoping you're a Viking's descent that like to go to war, too bad, because they're really match you. Or are you pinoy descent?
Another PS: I'm not a sir, call me Madam.

So, you were the one who falsely accused me of racism, but now you're showing your true self. One can't get any more racist than you just did. What will you say if I hypothetically admit to being of pinoy descent? Will you pull off some other racist joke?
Who cares what gender you are part of? The only thing that matters is that you're a racist lying sack of shit who preaches to others how intolerant, and racist they are. What about practicing what you preach? See, and that's the critical point where I'll have to say that you're not worth my time any more.
Have a nice day at figuring out what racial characteristics fit me best, and then be sure to add an ignorant racist remark because honestly, that seems to be the only thing you know how to do, and therefore suits you best.

10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 11/29/09

ShroomInferno wrote:

You might eventually re-open your history book, and look into that again before going on spreading blatant lies.

No problem. It appeared to be a necessary deed as you seemed to be completely ignorant about it the way you keep on whining about the Palestinians fate.
Now you want to implement the partition plan that was rejected by both, the Arab League and Palestinian institutions, at that time? You want to implement a plan that dates further back than half a century? As if the current cartographic situation would allow such a thing.
Hmm, the Oslo Accord became a joke after Hamas won the elections.

Oh, an other attempt at being historically dishonest. The UN GA resolution 181, the Jews agreed to the plan, and as I've mentioned the Arab League and Palestinian institutions didn't, and therefore started to infiltrate Palestine with army units, and started a war, known as the "Catastrophe", or "War of independence", whichever you prefer. Basically the Arabs never agreed to the partition plan that the UN introduced, and immediately started a war against the newly declared state of Israel.

As for the Oslo accord, how is being assassinated by a stupid radical right-wing Orthodox Jew, equalling with violation of the accord? What a bad joke, Sir. The Oslo Accord was flawed in several ways as it didn't disallow Israel from proceeding with enlarging their settlements, and as it was both sides violated it due to a general mistrust, and I'd have to say it was a big mistake of the Palestinians for not having had a legal advisor checking out the texts for potential leaks before agreeing to it. Honestly, I do not recommend it.
Both of those treaties would need to be revised by both sides, and also edited to today's standards of population, cartographic situation, etc. Otherwise I do not see how any of these could be implemented without qualms.


Just read here starting from first post, you will understand much.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-579650/deutscher-herbst/?pg=4#28837453
And here as for solutions.
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-377801/the-nation-of-israel-and-palestine/?pg=19#28800501

Another futile attempts to divert the topic as always, hmm....?


ShroomInferno wrote:

Yeah? Well, they should rethink because they were the ones violating it in the first place, not even speaking of how they never agreed to it. You know, it's impossible to violate an agreement that was never agreed upon by both sides.
No, no, it should go more like this "if the Palestinians are willing to end this fairly, then they should stop supporting Hamas, and stop with their stupid attempts at blaming anyone but themselves."

Why should the Arabs suddenly care about the international laws which they never cared about in the first place, hm?
Why should the Orthodox Jews get rid of this belief, while the Arab Palestinians will keep up with their unchanging mantra about how all of Israel is entirely part of their Palestine state?
Bullshit, Sir. Palestine is violating just as much. And the Goldstone report is full of shit. But thanks for citing your sources.. Now I can conclude with certainty that your posts always ought to be taken with a grain of salt.


It's about time. Many tactics, strategies and agreements could be fulfilled successfully if the terms, conditions and time met. If they don't want it in the past, implement it in the future when situations has became worst than we had imagined. You think any human beings want to live in war everyday? Can't say that to side who's been bombing third world countries, weak nations and in middle-east

Why Palestinians couldn't support Hamas, their own people, the one who won in 2006 elections? Or do you want to say they didn't follow democracy while they've being chosen in election? What kind of freedom do you want to implement there? Puppet government as always, hmm?

Wow, another person who says International Judge's reports are bullshit? Maybe you can't accept the truth? Or you're being dishonest again to current situations? Maybe you only wanted to read convenient reports for you, hmm? But thanks for telling us your brain level.. Now I can conclude with certainty that your posts always ought to be taken with a grain of salt.



ShroomInferno wrote:

Do you really believe that the Taliban regime was as decent as you like to portray it? And since when do these occupied countries care about what the UN says, or about the International laws at all?
But of course, I agree with you. Those wars were a futile act. They only managed to engender even more distrust, segregation, etc.

Which "big" nations started what first? You have to be a bit more precise. You can't generalise this much when speaking of historical events because otherwise your point won't come across, or could be misinterpreted.

See, that's where I'm having issues understanding what you're trying to get across, but in this instance I'll presume that you're denying that you claimed that by throwing all Muslims into the same cup one is being a racist, so I'll just cite your following words(part in brown, pay particular attention to the part in red):




Taliban what? Since when we talking about Taliban? Another futile efforts to divert entire topics? Not too good sir... maybe next time to another person. Just read this for further reference, http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-579650/deutscher-herbst/?pg=3#28747114

So does big nations = US, UK, France, Canada, Australia, NATO armies...etc cares about international law? When they started attacking third world countries by false accusations? Where is WMD and Biological Weapons...hm? The ones who made the laws are the ones who immune to their own laws.

ok, english is not my forte. What I meant was discrimination, similar meaning to racist? Maybe you wanted to generalize what I've been saying by single words? Not quite good enough, I must say.

So as it is, you're being fundamentally dishonest, but that's not all, you even starting to twist whole discussion which can be transliterated into the word "ignorant". Isn't being ignorant is your forte for your convenient in your life, hmmm?


ShroomInferno wrote:

What good is a constitution for when the government does not abide by it? It's shocking to see that there are actually people, like you, Sir, who hold the belief that Iran is not engaging in inhumane activities. Shirin Ebadi would wholeheartedly disagree with you, just like any Human rights organisation out there.
Iran's Waning Human Rights
Ligue de Défense des Droits de l’Homme en Iran


And there you go again, blithering on in your bubble of delusions.

So, lets see:





So, the guy in the previous article is pretty influential in the Islam community of Indonesia, and nobody does anything about him, he still has his privilege of uttering disheartening statements as seen before, preserved without any further troubles. But he's not only speaking about how 'rightful' terrorism is to protect his beloved religion, but he even urges his followers to not fear using violence against the 'kafirs'. Seriously, you'd think he's changed after having been incarcerated for a bit, but I guess this incarceration wasn't long enough for him to change his mind as one can see in the following article:


You see, after seeing what kind of people promote said religion in Indonesia, then it doesn't surprise me having to see such a course of action being undertaken by Muslims such as the following:


"Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Islamic terrorists are moving to a new strategy, opting for attacks against Christian clergymen and activists, targeting vital installations across the country instead of US interests, this according Police spokesman Inspector General Abubakar Nataprawira. Equally the threat of attacks linked to the November execution of three men sentenced for the October 2002 Bali bombings (pictured) remains high.



And to bring some colours into it, lets move to Pakistan: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=14259&theme=5&size=A
You'd think that we're in the 21st century, and that crusades, jihads, and all that religious warring attitude, and enmity would be gone by now, but I guess not.

Either way, I could go on, and on.


Wow, you're referring to extremist and terrorist to generalize all muslims in certain countries?! And you refer to Iran to generalize all muslims on the world? Your methods has reached the new level of biased. Congratulations, I must say , lol~

What kind of laws they've been violated? From what I heard, it's all about adultery, murder and such. I know europes do not have capital punishments in their laws. But not to Islamic laws, Democracy and any other laws we have on the world. You meant, Iran violating Europe's laws, hmm? Meaning you won't satisfied when they don't implement your laws, hmm? We can see the intolerance here. That's what they believe, leave them alone.

How about freedom of religions expression? Despite their hate to Israel, doen't mean they hate Jews. After all, Iran is the second largest Jews population in middle-east, unlike some countries who can't tolerate Jews in their country just because of what Israel did.
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/iran.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
http://www.puslitbang1-depag.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:religious-harmony-in-the-biggest-moslem-country-the-experience-from-indonesia&catid=12:ilmiah&Itemid=17

Every religion has its extremist, political groups has its own radical. Or you saying that because of your hate to muslims, hmm? Can't argue with that. Either way, you could go on and on hating muslims for your own convenient reasons.


ShroomInferno wrote:


Oh, sorry, you prefer Tel Aviv to be considered as capital, right? Why would it be illegal? Oh, so you're also in favour of the theory that the Israelis are illegally occupying Jerusalem. You'd think that the ones to be blamed are the Arabs for having started a war which they lost.


Excuse me? You speak about manners? Is there any manners in France when they prohibited female students wearing veil?
So, you meant teenagers who pose like Hitler considered as not offensive in Germany and Europe's countries? Last time I checked they were prohibited.

In certain countries, customs and laws. It just can't due to their historical and values they hold. Does Christian and Muslims need their holy places to be able to pray? NO. If they being stubborn and resist to laws, that's their fault for being disrespect to local laws they've been implemented for decades. If they can't agree to local laws, moreover causing disputes, that's proven they are far from god for not being tolerance to other religions.

Palestine-Israel? Since when this topic is about them? Another futile attempt to divert whole topic? Talk in appropriate topic.
Never said anything about Tel Aviv or whatsoever you're spouting about.


ShroomInferno wrote:

Personal law? What personal laws are you speaking of? You mean things such as Shariah laws? I thought the UK is a prime example for having allowed a parallel legal system by allowing Muslims to lead their own courts in spite of the fact that Shariah laws are in conflict with our laws. Not even Christians are allowed to be prosecuted after their religious laws. In the West, we're presumably all equal in front of the law. If you can't we can't either, which is only fair. If everyone were allowed to be judged after their personal laws, and be able to refer to the basic human right: religious freedom, then that would mean that some Inkas' religious traditions such as human sacrifices should be recognised by our law, too.

You can't intermix personal law with official laws as it poses too many problems. And honestly, I have no idea what Islamic country would recognise my personal law, in actual fact, I'm not even allowed to wear the kind of clothing I want out of fear I might offend some Muslims, and risk a broken nose. To the other, didn't you just earlier claim the following:
"Remember this is an Islamic country.. You only come to this country if you are on invite.. So if you plan on coming, you do as you are requested in the home of the host."
Oh, looks like this ideology of yours only counts when it's about Westerners coming to Islamic countries, but not vice versa.


that's cool about UK. The source? What human sacrifices you're talking about? Norse religions, much?
personal laws about wearing veil in France? Kind of ridiculous Sarkozy there.

If you want to show off your skin or wearing bikini, go to beach not to public. Same logic aren't they? Wear clothes which is appropiate to their values, if not you're being disrespect to them. Seeing you as guest there. Never heard there was official government officer wearing their plain clothes. They must be wearing business suit with tight tie. Your ideology failed when you onle see it from your perspective.



ShroomInferno wrote:

Actually, due to several complaints even Church bells aren't ringing that often any more, and in some regions aren't ringing at all any more. It's a source of noise which quite a few people do not approve of. To the other, like mentioned earlier, there are Islamic countries where Christian buildings just don't exist, and therefore no bells can ring, and where non-Muslim minorities are being subjected to persecution, and constant violence. Obviously tolerance seems to be a transferable construct, and in this respect, until the day when non-Muslims minorities can freely, practice their religions, 'personal laws', publicly carry non-Muslim symbols, and build their religious facilities without fear from groundless repercussions there will be no respect for Muslim Personal laws either in Judeo-Christian societies.

That would be one option. The second option would be that Islam and its adherents should get along with the idea that they can claim only as much tolerance as they let us enjoy in their societies, and consequently they should stop using Western liberalism as a means to force their own agenda on the rest of society, and adapt to our societies just like we're supposed to adapt to theirs.

The anti-Western prejudice amongst Muslims, and Islamic countries is quite wide-spread, too, and therefore we're even.
Hate crimes are just as much a fact in Islamic countries, and definitely largely outnumber the ones happening in the West. Well, vandalism against religious buildings is not supported by our countries contrarily to Islamic countries where it seems to be a common practice to destroy anything that's not connected with Islam. To the other, Western vandals have been attacking several Christian, Jewish, and other facilities, too. So it's not like they're just ganging up against the Muslims.


I've explained much above. Clearly, you didn't read the link hmm?
And Islamophobia prejudice amongst westerner is quite wide-spread too, Thanks to media propaganda. Even? when western nations were the ones who started attacking islamic countries using False Accusation and Baseless Allegations by WMD and Biological weapon? You didn't see the root of it.

Not to mention, discrimination against muslims in US, UK, France...etc. Are you trying not looking at that fact too? Now we are even.




ShroomInferno wrote:

This passage made no sense at all.
My definition of terrorism is as follows: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
The one you've been describing quite clearly matches with the definition. That's how the history of terrorism started, Sir.
Fighting for their human rights? They're shunning human rights every day, so why would they suddenly care about their human rights?
So, making a caricature of Mohammed means that one is being supportive of 'foreign countries'(yeah, wtf are you talking about, Sir?), hm?
My accusation? What accusation? You keep on accusing me of falsely accusing, and basing my knowledge on 'biased media', and ignoring the truth. You're being the whole time dishonest, you make false assumptions about me, etc. That's not how you debunk an argument, Sir. Try to find a more effective method such as using your critical thinking.


Very match to invaders in middle-east correct?
Do you even trying to understand their laws? Or just pointing the certain laws that will support you? Wth are you trying to say?

You keep on accusing Islam without further explain, and basing them based on your dull knowledge, and ignoring the truth. You're being the whole time dishonest, you make false assumptions about Islam, etc. That's not how you participate in an argument, Sir. Try to find a more effective method such as using your critical thinking and understanding.



ShroomInferno wrote:

So, that's how low you stoop when you're on the losing end. What a shame.
Again, you're LYING. That's what YOU were groundlessly accusing me of again: "You're 1% that really attacking religion without look it deeper."
Then you're intellectually too limited to write your own stuff.


Pathetic efforts to divert whole topic?


ShroomInferno wrote:

Okay then, so it's only me who's wondering why there's so much intolerance?
Of course they would be happy. Reminds me of two Catholic girls who were on their way to a catholic school, and then suddenly they were attacked by some Muslims, and were beheaded.
Well, they're just as much under attack from the Islamist terrorists. Besides, it's more of an occupation than an 'attack' in that sense. Sure, I agree with you, they were better of under the Islamist regimes.


I haven't 'put words into someone's post', but you've been quite clearly showing to us how much of a prevaricator you are.
My history lesson wasn't a waste of time, it was more than appropriate as your historical dishonesty and ignorance was more than obvious. Wrong. I do care about it.


So, you were the one who falsely accused me of racism, but now you're showing your true self. One can't get any more racist than you just did. What will you say if I hypothetically admit to being of pinoy descent? Will you pull off some other racist joke?
Who cares what gender you are part of? The only thing that matters is that you're a racist lying sack of shit who preaches to others how intolerant, and racist they are. What about practicing what you preach? See, and that's the critical point where I'll have to say that you're not worth my time any more.

Have a nice day at figuring out what racial characteristics fit me best, and then be sure to add an ignorant racist remark because honestly, that seems to be the only thing you know how to do, and therefore suits you best.



Yeah, reminds me of bloody muslims on the street being beaten by westerners. Well, they're just as much under attack from the invaders. Besides, it's more of an occupation than an 'attack' in that sense. Sure, I agree with you, they were better of under the Islamist regimes.

No one cares about bloody history which bring us nowhere to end this. You only care about it to support your attack against muslims, ain't ya? hmmmm?!You've been proven once again being discriminate to certain religions based on your hate to them. Too futile to be used. Stop embarrassing yourself would be much more appropriate sir. Maybe you hate muslims because of immigrants in swedish? They caused much trouble? Maybe you didn't show much tolerance like other europe's countries.

Have a nice day at figuring out what racial characteristics fit me best, and then be sure to add an ignorant hate remark because honestly, that seems to be the only thing you know how to do, and therefore suits you best.

838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 11/30/09
Eventually this will blow over. That might seem like an insensitive way of putting it, but we're not terrified of Russians or Germans anymore, so why not Muslims? Time heals all wounds. I don't know if I believe that, but time does indeed leave scars which will hopefully make us stronger. Anyway, I'm sure this "islamophobia" will go away, too, once enough time has passed without great incidence.
Posted 11/30/09

Lionna wrote:

Eventually this will blow over. That might seem like an insensitive way of putting it, but we're not terrified of Russians or Germans anymore, so why not Muslims? Time heals all wounds. I don't know if I believe that, but time does indeed leave scars which will hopefully make us stronger. Anyway, I'm sure this "islamophobia" will go away, too, once enough time has passed without great incidence.

That's assuming that the Muslim extremists are keeping in touch with the current time, which I think it isn't the case to be. When their demands all seem to be a return to what they referred as "old teachings".
Posted 11/30/09 , edited 11/30/09

DomFortress wrote:

That's assuming that the Muslim extremists are keeping in touch with the current time, which I think it isn't the case to be. When their demands all seem to be a return to what they referred as "old teachings".


Indeed. And it doesn't seem like Islamic fundamentalism is declining, sadly it's 'au contraire'.
Posted 11/30/09

ShroomInferno wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That's assuming that the Muslim extremists are keeping in touch with the current time, which I think it isn't the case to be. When their demands all seem to be a return to what they referred as "old teachings".


Indeed. And it doesn't seem like Islamic fundamentalism is declining, sadly it's 'au contraire'.

Precisely, and I can't respect their old teachings that violate international human rights law.

Here's what I can see insofar, whenever the Muslim extremists violate international human rights law in their community, they'll simply excuse themselves for exercising their religious freedom. Which is a part of the international human rights law that grands religious beliefs as freedom of expression, and in doing so they demand to be respected by the international community.
Posted 11/30/09

DomFortress wrote:

Precisely, and I can't respect their old teachings that violate international human rights law.

Here's what I can see insofar, whenever the Muslim extremists violate international human rights law in their community, they'll simply excuse themselves for exercising their religious freedom. Which is a part of the international human rights law that grands religious beliefs as freedom of expression, and in doing so they demand to be respected by the international community.


I just hope that I never ever get to see the Shariah laws getting introduced in my country.
Posted 11/30/09 , edited 11/30/09

ShroomInferno wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Precisely, and I can't respect their old teachings that violate international human rights law.

Here's what I can see insofar, whenever the Muslim extremists violate international human rights law in their community, they'll simply excuse themselves for exercising their religious freedom. Which is a part of the international human rights law that grands religious beliefs as freedom of expression, and in doing so they demand to be respected by the international community.


I just hope that I never ever get to see the Shariah laws getting introduced in my country.

I got a better idea; since Muslim extremists exercise inhuman practices namely against the Western idealists. This means that humanitarian activists are the next best form of diplomacy, if only the Islamic terrorists didn't resist humanitarian efforts. Which can only means that the terrorists' actions aren't humane to begin with, while they keep claiming that their acts are some sort of divine interventions against the Western movements.

But since when did humanity being humane means being Westernized?
5463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 11/30/09
When most Western nations dot behead people, have public whippings or hand removal punishments.
Posted 11/30/09

Sulla wrote:

When most Western nations dot behead people, have public whippings or hand removal punishments.

Don't forget stoning, that's as common as labeling someone as a whore and then stone her to death in an Islamic society. It's the law.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 12/1/09

DomFortress wrote:


Sulla wrote:

When most Western nations dot behead people, have public whippings or hand removal punishments.

Don't forget stoning, that's as common as labeling someone as a whore and then stone her to death in an Islamic society. It's the law.


I don't approve of crimes witch are being punished in that way, not the punishment itself. I doubt their recidivism rate is big! In west you do the crime, then live off the tax payers money in prison, and then you go out and do it again. in US recidivism rate was about 80% in 2006. I think it is hard to steal again when your only remaining hand is in question.
Posted 12/1/09

blancer wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Sulla wrote:

When most Western nations dot behead people, have public whippings or hand removal punishments.

Don't forget stoning, that's as common as labeling someone as a whore and then stone her to death in an Islamic society. It's the law.


I don't approve of crimes witch are being punished in that way, not the punishment itself. I doubt their recidivism rate is big! In west you do the crime, then live off the tax payers money in prison, and then you go out and do it again. in US recidivism rate was about 80% in 2006. I think it is hard to steal again when your only remaining hand is in question.

What is eugenic.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.