dialamah

I agree that mutual misunderstanding is a factor. One small example is that Egyptians hate Obama/Clinton because when they rioted against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, the official word out of Washington was to give the democratically elected government a chance. When Sisi organized the coup, the West condemned that. Many Egyptians viewed that as the West's desire to keep them oppressed under a theocracy that was controlled by the US. Were they right? Or was Obama simply trying to support democracy in the region?

Not having Western countries organize coups, set up dictators and drop bombs on their countries would go a long way to helping them get rid of their "victim mentality". I agree we can't take all the blame for all the instability in the Middle East, but pretending our activities have had no influence on their perceptions of us is wrong.

This is very true, thanks for pointing it out. How could "the West" be vilified in Islam since it didn't exist at the time Islam was founded? It is, in my opinion, more accurate to say that as Western intervention continued in Muslim-majority countries, the people there began to view "the West" as a problem and that's where the vilification arose from. And its not universal, either. Tunisia used the US Constitution to model their Constitution on.

Tunisia.

No. Don't think it went unnoticed how quickly you ran when invited to actually discuss your views on Muslims.

If there is no God, then he is just an excuse for people to do what they want to do anyway - gain territory/power. Certainly some of the followers may well believe they are working to God's will, but the leaders - nah, they are simply using religion to achieve their ends. ISIS uses selected teachings to persuade just enough people that theirs is a Godly mission, but they are after territory and power, with a side dash of punishing the West for their activities in the ME. The US likes to pretend they are a Godly nation, as they bomb the shit out of other countries to "save the oppressed", but really they are just after oil and power. Still many conservative Christians firmly believe the US is on the side of God and support military activities, regardless of who is hurt/killed/displaced.

No. Any violence carried out by Christian extremists based on Biblical scripture is: 1. Contrary to modern (Western) mainstream Christian belief and doesn't count; 2. Way in the past, so irrelevant; 3. From the Old Testament but because the New Testament supersedes anything in the OT (that makes Christianity look bad) it doesn't count. 4. Carried out by some nutcase who calls himself Christian but clearly is not. 5. And if all else fails "You don't understand the context of that scripture".

Clearly, we agree.

So nothing should be objected to until it becomes illegal?

Do you think ISIS recruiters start out by saying kill infidels? Nah, they work up to it. Develop hatred gradually, build it up, lead the person to the action you want them to take. Already on this forum we have Capricorn and Pik who are all good with Muslims getting attacked and killed because "we don't want Islam".

I dunno, should they? Should we never object to ISIS telling potential recruits why they need to kill infidels because only the gullible will fall for it?

It works on the gullible.

Yes I do remember. I still dispute your claim that assuming people lied on a survey, but only on questions that don't support your view is logical.

Well, that's cool. I shall just put you into the same category as those Muslims who hate gays/apostates enough to wish death upon them: disgusting examples of humanity.

Yeah, that all pretty much backs up what I said.

So Muslims are so deeply committed to their conservative social values that they cannot be trusted not to impose them on the rest of us, but yet mere gratitude has them working against their own plan to create a more socially conservative society?

Their religion says they can lie to infidels if to do otherwise would result in their death. The latter is something the anti-Muslim crew like to gloss over. Sure, you can suppose any number of things as to why only the parts of the survey you don't like aren't true and that 'those people' must be lying only on those questions. But then if someone notices and calls you biased or even bigoted, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in denying those accusations.

I agree that what she was doing was stupid and counter-productive and resulted in her speaker being broken. But none of that has anything to do with violating someone's right to free speech, since that right is only in relation to the government preventing citizens from speaking out against the government.

Its not ok with me, any more than the girl using a speaker to prevent a man talking was ok with me. But its not a violation of the "right to free speech".

Only the government can violate someone's right to free speech. Objecting and protesting are just as much a right of free speech as giving a presentation. I agree that becoming physical as part of one's protesting is wrong, and that entrances should not be blocked. But anything up to that point is acceptable, in my opinion. If a venue decides to cancel an event due to non-violent protest, that is their right as well. One can argue the effectiveness or appropriateness of protest tactics, but tying them to a desire to shut down free speech demonstrates a misunderdtanding of what the right to free speech means, imo.

In regards to the Environics survey, which you use to demonstrate that Muslims are more religious, more women are wearing hijab, you also denied that part of the survey demonstrating that Muslims are proud of Canada because of it's freedoms and diversity, and that Muslims, especially young Muslims, are becoming more 'mainstream' in terms of their social values. Your exact words: Gee, maybe because it's really easy to lie to a survey? Maybe because regardless of how conservative their religious beliefs are they know better than to tell a survey "Why, yes, I do think those faggots should all be killed." And: They see no reason to lie about whether they wear a hijab or not. They're proud to wear a hijab. Why would they lie about that, or about attending mosque? But they know enough, from exposure to our culture, to know that expressing hatred towards gays, or a belief that women are inferior and must at all times obey men, will not go over very well among infidels. And, after all, their religion gives them permission to lie to infidels.

Sorry, I meant a cite where I have said Muslim majority countries do not discriminate against women more than Western countries. My bad, I was not clear.

Cite please.

It"s kinda the same thing that has happened to me. I have said that life in Egypt isn't the hellhole for women some here assume it is, and that there are efforts in Muslim majority countries to improve the situation for women (and gays) and in return I get "prove that life in Muslim Majority countries is great for women". Because really, saying anything at all positive about Muslims or Muslim majority countries is absolutely not acceptable around here.