This week in Islam

[jacee]

Note that I am being sarcastic when I make the comment about US foreign policy.

The Koran plays a much bigger role than Anglo foreign policy ever does or did.

Ridiculous.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/world/europe/french-muslims-worry-about-backlash-after-charlie-hebdo-attack.html?referrer=

Hassen Farsadou, the president of the Union of Muslim Associations of Seine-Saint-Denis, said the terrorist attacks were a despicable, criminal act, which we condemn utterly.

But its the rest of us who are paying the bill thats the problem now, and we fear it will be a problem in the future, he said. The Muslim community is very afraid. Already, Mr. Farsadou said, he has received more than a hundred calls from average Muslims, mostly women, reporting attacks and insults hurled at them in the streets.

[msj]

Jacee you are going to have to work harder to show the link between my comments and how they lead to the discrimination you are talking about.

Perhaps you can also link that discrimination all the way back to Lawrence of Arabia while you're at it.

[Guest]

Such mixed messages. I really don't know what to think...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/11/hamburger-morgenpost-a-german-newspaper-that-reprinted-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-firebombed-in-overnight-attack/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/09/hezbollah-leader-says-muslim-extremists-harm-islam-more-than-those-who-published-satirical-cartoons/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/10/a-man-was-dying-in-a-pool-of-his-own-blood-heroes-and-tragedy-as-details-emerge-from-kosher-supermarket-attack/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/10/too-many-bodies-to-count-deadliest-massacre-in-history-of-boko-haram-killed-thousands-amnesty-international-says/

Edited January 11, 2015 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

One way to inoculate the sensitive (but violent) faithful is to expose them to more cartoon blasphemy...not less.

Comprehending satire: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/288112081.html

[kimmy]

This week in Islam, a woman was beheaded in Mecca, and a guy has begun serving a sentence of 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison for starting a website.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-publicly-beheads-woman-in-holy-mecca-as-blogger-set-to-receive-second-lashing-9982134.html

-k

[msj]

Throwing gays from rooftops: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/16/in-graphic-videos-and-on-twitter-isis-members-record-and-tout-executions-of-gay-men.html

Religion of peace because they tell me so....

[Michael Hardner]

That one was the terrorists though... not immams or lay people...

If we're going to attack ISIS, we can't be on here saying that they ARE Islam can we ? Or should we just attack Islam ?

Also, I'm still trying to figure out where "a few" "many" and such numbers come into play. Are these "a few" Muslims or "many" militants ?

[eyeball]

This week in Islam, a woman was beheaded in Mecca, and a guy has begun serving a sentence of 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison for starting a website.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-publicly-beheads-woman-in-holy-mecca-as-blogger-set-to-receive-second-lashing-9982134.html

-k

Our allies...close personal friends given the understanding of the term I'm usually given.

[Guest]

Not mine. They disgust me.

[Guest]

That one was the terrorists though... not immams or lay people...

If we're going to attack ISIS, we can't be on here saying that they ARE Islam can we ? Or should we just attack Islam ?

Also, I'm still trying to figure out where "a few" "many" and such numbers come into play. Are these "a few" Muslims or "many" militants ?

Why does it always have to come back to attacking Islam as a single entity, as though criticism of a Muslim or Muslims is criticism of all Muslims?

The lashing, the casting from the rooftop, a stoning that I read about recently, the murders in Nigeria and Paris, all done by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Should any Muslim who was not involved feel any obligation to apologise for those acts? No, of course not. But to deny who did carry them out, and why, is wilful blindness.

It's not difficult to acknowledge. It really isn't. Why do so many people, from Presidents on down, tie themselves in knots trying to avoid doing so?

[Michael Hardner]

Why does it always have to come back to attacking Islam as a single entity, as though criticism of a Muslim or Muslims is criticism of all Muslims?

I don't know why. Especially after 45 pages, the point has been made.

It's not difficult to acknowledge. It really isn't. Why do so many people, from Presidents on down, tie themselves in knots trying to avoid doing so?

If you don't know why politicians avoid this, then that's probably a new thread. As for this ... 46 pages ...

[eyeball]

Not mine. They disgust me.

Me too, but until such time as we go back to using war-bonds to fund war, we are with them whether we like it or not...brothers and sisters (less one) in arms on the side of righteousness according to Steve.

So how do feel about holding a national referendum before we let people like Steve commit us to wars halfway around the world? I think we should require a super-majority myself. I'd say as high as 70% given the moral and ethic principles that people like Steve don't mind laying on the line. I don't know about their grandfathers but mine just about lost their lives establishing and defending those principles.

[Guest]

I don't know why. Especially after 45 pages, the point has been made.

If you don't know why politicians avoid this, then that's probably a new thread. As for this ... 46 pages ...

I think politicians would make an awful lot of friends, both Muslim and non-Muslim if they simply acknowledged the truth as I so simply stated above.

I know not many politicians are big fans of the truth, but still, you'd think they would have advisors.

[Guest]

Me too, but until such time as we go back to using war-bonds to fund war, we are with them whether we like it or not...brothers and sisters (less one) in arms on the side of righteousness according to Steve.

So how do feel about holding a national referendum before we let people like Steve commit us to wars halfway around the world? I think we should require a super-majority myself. I'd say as high as 70% given the moral and ethic principles that people like Steve don't mind laying on the line. I don't know about their grandfathers but mine just about lost their lives establishing and defending those principles.

Well, Steve consults me about as much as he consults you. Same with Barack, David and Angela. That said, I've never been a big fan of government by referendum. It's all very well when you win one...

Edited January 19, 2015 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

And that's why we're getting the government, and the allies it makes, that we deserve.

[Argus]

That one was the terrorists though... not immams or lay people...

If we're going to attack ISIS, we can't be on here saying that they ARE Islam can we ? Or should we just attack Islam ?

Maybe you'd do better by showing us how such actions go against the Koran.... except that they don't.

[Argus]

So how do feel about holding a national referendum before we let people like Steve commit us to wars halfway around the world? I think we should require a super-majority myself. I'd say as high as 70% given the moral and ethic principles that people like Steve don't mind laying on the line.

Wasn't it the Liberals who committed us to our longest lasting and costliest war since Korea?

We fight groups like ISIS over there because we don't want them to get bigger and more powerful. Do you really want another Saudi Arabia, only one even nastier and crazier than them?

[The_Squid]

Wasn't it the Liberals who committed us to our longest lasting and costliest war since Korea?We fight groups like ISIS over there because we don't want them to get bigger and more powerful. Do you really want another Saudi Arabia, only one even nastier and crazier than them?

Nastier and crazier than Saudi Arabia? But Harper has a huge arms deal with nasty, crazy Saudi Arabia worth $15 billion.

Nothing could go wrong there...

[eyeball]

Wasn't it the Liberals who committed us to our longest lasting and costliest war since Korea?

We fight groups like ISIS over there because we don't want them to get bigger and more powerful. Do you really want another Saudi Arabia, only one even nastier and crazier than them?

facepalm/

And I suppose it was the NDP that allied the west with Saudi Arabia.

I can't believe there wasn't a single futurist who could have foreseen just how abysmally moronic the 21st century would be.

Edited January 19, 2015 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe you'd do better by showing us how such actions go against the Koran.... except that they don't.

Why do I have to do that ?

[WIP]

This week in Islam, a woman was beheaded in Mecca, and a guy has begun serving a sentence of 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison for starting a website.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-publicly-beheads-woman-in-holy-mecca-as-blogger-set-to-receive-second-lashing-9982134.html

-k

This week in Islam, the U.S. Government still provides billions of dollars worth of armaments and weapons training to the Saudis, and gives Saudi Arabia preferential treatment, such as vetoing any attempts to impose sanctions or other measures against Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses. Saudi sovereign wealth funds are also allowed unencumbered access to buy shares in American corporations, even corporations that make the largest campaign donations through PAC's and Super PAC's.

And the Saudis spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year, sending teachers and building madrassahs throughout the Muslim World to promote their version of Islam. But, let's not take note of those uncomfortable facts and join in shaking our fists at barbaric Muslims in our moment of hate, and congratulate ourselves for our superior qualities and civilization!

[Argus]

facepalm/

And I suppose it was the NDP that allied the west with Saudi Arabia.

I can't believe there wasn't a single futurist who could have foreseen just how abysmally moronic the 21st century would be.

You've forgotten what happened in the 20th? I think Saudi Arabia was dismissed as a typical bunch of barbarians that nobody in the world needed to worry about. The oil was in the hands of westerners and everything was fine. The problems only started in the seventies when the Saudis and others demanded way more oil money, and got it. They then began to use part of that enormous wealth to proselytize and expand their nasty version of Islam around the world, and the West was too afraid of another oil embargo to do anything about it. Plus, we didn't really care since we're all for 'freedom of religion'. No, I don't think they really understood what was going to be the end result until Osama bin Laden.

And as I have already explained to you, the current government of Saudi Arabia are actually the MODERATE guys, in comparison to what would take over if we let it. So the only alternatives are to try to moderate them further, or else conquer them and take control of the oil money ourselves.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Why do I have to do that ?

Because you want to show that their actions are not because of religion.

[Michael Hardner]

Because you want to show that their actions are not because of religion.

I don't want to show that.

[Michael Hardner]

Seriously, though, 45 pages ... has the point been made ?