Violence broke out over a gay Jesus art show

[Black Dog]

Because they are the single biggest creators of human misery, the single greatest threat to the safety of others, and the single greatest threat to world peace.

Now that I'd like to see quantified.

And they get a free pass

Really? The nine billion threads here on Islam, the booming cottage industry of anti-Islamic blogs, books and pundits, the constant media attention of "Islamic" terrorism, and of course the centuries long history of violent western interventions in the Muslim world is a "free-pass"? F**k, I would hate to see what scrutiny looks like.

Back to the topic...

Edited August 21, 2007 by Black Dog

[betsy]

It's the exact equivalent. They tried to burn the place down. Arson. Ever heard of it?

How can you say EXACT EQUIVALENT when first of all, we're talking of only a group of 30 YOUNG PEOPLE - take note how they specified YOUNG - whereas violent Muslim protests usually comprise of a mass of people numbering from hundreds to thousands, and from varying age groups and genders?

Wheras I could easily assume that these 30 young people (probably in their late teens) could be stoned or high, displaying the same insane tendencies we sometimes see among sore-loser hockey fans...it will be hard for me to assume that the hundreds or thousands of Muslims violently protesting are all druggies!

Of course it's nowhere the same! It's not even nowhere the equivalent of the rampaging youth in France (burning cars etc..)!

And then let's talk about the focus of their violence. This group of 30 has one, sole focus! The art-show! It resulted in a brawl!

The rampaging youth of France....everything they can lay their hands on, either to be vandalised or beaten up, or killed! The rampaging violent Muslim proetsters.....everything in their path is fair game, either to be vandalised or beatened up, or killed!

Actually, the link above states only a "group of young people"...and that about 30 people joined the fight! So we're not talking of a group of 30 young protesters. And it was a fight! A brawl!

Let's get a grip and put this in a sensible perspective!

Edited August 21, 2007 by betsy

[CLRV]

All you've said there is it's the same thing and the only difference is one of degree.

Except for that hilarious bit about the "drugged-out" Christian youth...

[betsy]

All you've said there is it's the same thing and the only difference is one of degree.

Except for that hilarious bit about the "drugged-out" Christian youth...

So, counter my explanations not with a simple statement....but with a credible explanation.

You can't negate what I explained with a childish "it ain't so" and expect us to take it just like that.

I insist, "yes, it is so." And I've explained why it is so.

Edited August 21, 2007 by betsy

[CLRV]

I've already explained. Some Christian extremists busted loose, just like the evil Muslims do. Just like they do when they bomb abortion clinics. Just like they do when they murder doctors. Just like they do when they bomb children because God told them to do it.

[betsy]

I've already explained. Some Christian extremists busted loose, just like the evil Muslims do. Just like they do when they bomb abortion clinics. Just like they do when they murder doctors. Just like they do when they bomb children because God told them to do it.

How many abortion murders had happened? I'd more likely compare those to serial murderers or psychotic murders.

Although I doubt these abortion murderers are more than 3 in numbers....I never did follow the news. I think there was only one arrested, if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, are you suggesting Muslims are more prone to be psychotic since they could easily swell their numbers up to thousands in one go? What, all it takes is an elbow nudge and that's enought to trigger a Muslim to go bonkers?

Okay, okay...since you're so keen to compare, I'll give you something closely comparable than the examples you're so desperately trying to fit in the box.

The violent Muslim street protests are comparable to the days of THE TERROR in France during the times of Marie Antoinette.

Edited August 21, 2007 by betsy

[CLRV]

How many? How many? Again, the difference you are arguing is one of degree only.

And the Reign of Terror was a secular phenomenon.

[betsy]

How many? How many? Again, the difference you are arguing is one of degree only.

And the Reign of Terror was a secular phenomenon.

Whatever it is, they display the same kind of actions! Phenomenon indeed....well, isn't it a phenomenon that these street mobs suddenly materialize everywhere in the world almost simultaneously?

Of course, number is the key!

[CLRV]

You realize, don't you, that Marie Antoinette was a member of an aristocracy that was brutally grinding the poor of France into the dirt with the help and blessing of the Christian Church? A woman who said "let them eat cake" when told the poor were starving for lack of bread? If the muslims are the french revolutionaries, what does that make us? Sure you want to continue with this line of analogy?

If number is the key for you, you are arguing quantity, not difference.

[jefferiah]

You realize, don't you, that Marie Antoinette was a member of an aristocracy that was brutally grinding the poor of France into the dirt with the help and blessing of the Christian Church? A woman who said "let them eat cake" when told the poor were starving for lack of bread? If the muslims are the french revolutionaries, what does that make us? Sure you want to continue with this line of analogy?

If number is the key for you, you are arguing quantity, not difference.

Hmmm.... I think many historians now feel that Marie Antionette and Louis have been misrepresented. Though Louis was King, it is sort of like being a figurehead politician, you don't have a complete say in everything that happens. The french nobility had a lot of power and influence. Many historians paint a picture of a rather naive Louis and Marie, who perhaps were not such bad people.

Whether this is wholly true or not, one thing is now widely agreed upon: "Let them eat cake." was revolutionary propaganda and not the direct quote of Marie Antoinette in response to the starving public. It was said years before her by another Marie (Marie Therese, wife of Louis the Fourteenth), and used as fuel for the revolutionary fire. And there was no cake either, so I understand. It was "brioche".

Edited August 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[CLRV]

Actually yes, I have heard those things. I've also heard it said that if Marie actually said those words, it was out of a lack of comprehension as to the degree of the peasant's deprivation; that the luxury of her existence made her incapable of understanding that if people ran out of bread they actually couldn't just switch to cake.

None of which changes the historical fact that the French aristocracy ground their peasants mercilessly for generations and that this was the fuel for the savage overkill of the Revolution. When you abuse, murder and exploit an entire population, robbing them of their wealth and the fruits of their labours and leaving them nothing to lose, they turn insanely violent against you.

So yeah, maybe there is a clue here for figuring out why today's Muslims seem so volotile and prone to overreaction. But I doubt it will sink into the minds of those it would benefit the most.

[M.Dancer]

Whether this is wholly true or not, one thing is now widely agreed upon: "Let them eat cake." was revolutionary propaganda and not the direct quote of Marie Antoinette in response to the starving public. It was said years before her by another Marie (Marie Therese, wife of Louis the Fourteenth), and used as fuel for the revolutionary fire. And there was no cake either, so I understand. It was "brioche".

Yes and there were laws that said the price of basic bread was such and such....so if they ran out they had to sell the next level of bread for the basic price.....let them eat brioche was in fact what the law dictated.

That being said, Vive Le revolution.....

[Black Dog]

None of which changes the historical fact that the French aristocracy ground their peasants mercilessly for generations and that this was the fuel for the savage overkill of the Revolution. When you abuse, murder and exploit an entire population, robbing them of their wealth and the fruits of their labours and leaving them nothing to lose, they turn insanely violent against you.

So yeah, maybe there is a clue here for figuring out why today's Muslims seem so volotile and prone to overreaction. But I doubt it will sink into the minds of those it would benefit the most.

Now CLRV, that sounds dangerously close to "root causes" type thinking. Next you'll be talking about historical context and lord knows, we can't have that. Besides, what good would such a discussion be, since everyone knows Muslims have always been bloodthirsty, primitive savages and any and all beefs they have with the west are mere byproducts of their diseased imaginations. /sarcasm

You'll find the views of many here on the Muslim world in general and the Middle East in particular to be akin to a child standing over a broken cookie jar: "It was like this when I got there."

Edited August 21, 2007 by Black Dog

[CLRV]

...through a mouthful of cookies.

I understand.

[Bonam]

You'll find the views of many here on the Muslim world in general and the Middle East in particular to be akin to a child standing over a broken cookie jar: "It was like this when I got there."

...through a mouthful of cookies.

I understand.

Yes, because every westerner is personally and directly responsible for the current state of the Arab/Muslim world.

[M.Dancer]

You mean the Mamluks and the Ottomans have nothing to do with the current state of affairs? How about the perpetual feuds betwee clans and sectarian violence that goes back for 600 years?

What a relief....history is so much easier if you only blame me......

[Black Dog]

Yes, because every westerner is personally and directly responsible for the current state of the Arab/Muslim world.

Yeah: that's what I said.

[CLRV]

Which, of course, translates instantly to a complete freedom of responsibility for the things our governments HAVE done over there.

Our governments, for which WE are supposedly responsible through this big-ass DEMOCRACY we're always shooting our mouths off about.

[Bonam]

Yeah: that's what I said.

The child that stands over the empty cookie jar, with a mouthful of cookies, is personally responsible for the state of the cookie jar. That was the analogy. When you liken a critic of Islam on these boards to that child, you imply that that person is himself responsible for the state of Islam. Given that the people you are addressing are most likely not colonial administrators, slave-traders, etc, that means you assign that blame to those critics for no other reason than the supposed deeds of their ancestors or other members of their "race" or religion or nationality.

[M.Dancer]

Which, of course, translates instantly to a complete freedom of responsibility for the things our governments HAVE done over there.

Our governments, for which WE are supposedly responsible through this big-ass DEMOCRACY we're always shooting our mouths off about.

.....like what exactly? Building the Suez?

[CLRV]

.....like what exactly? Building the Suez?

Installing the Taliban to fight the Russians for us?

Installing Saddam to fight Iran for us?

Maintaining the tyrranical rule of the House of Saud lo these many years?

Any of this ring a bell?

Edited August 21, 2007 by CLRV

[Bonam]

like what exactly? Building the Suez?

Apparently colonizing the middle-east. After all, we obviously voted in those British/French colonialists of centuries past, and therefore are to blame.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps the big mistake the west made was not colonializing Arabia.....The only attempts made were Egypt and Lebanon....both have threatened at various times to dangerously close to being modern...with modern laws and democracy and such........maybe the rest of Arabia would have at least been as civilized as India by now........on the otherhand, there were reasons why the west didn't.....waking up to find your sons have had their knick knacks cut off and sold as harem attendents might have been one of them.

[CLRV]

Oh so that's what we're fighting over there for.

Knick-knacks...

[Black Dog]

The child that stands over the empty cookie jar, with a mouthful of cookies, is personally responsible for the state of the cookie jar. That was the analogy. When you liken a critic of Islam on these boards to that child, you imply that that person is himself responsible for the state of Islam. Given that the people you are addressing are most likely not colonial administrators, slave-traders, etc, that means you assign that blame to those critics for no other reason than the supposed deeds of their ancestors or other members of their "race" or religion or nationality.

Well, the child in my analogy was not any individual but a stand in for what we like to call "western civilization." One can debate the extent of which western colonialism and intervention is responsible for the messy state of affairs in that region, but one cannot deny it. Yet, starngely, many here do just that.

Perhaps the big mistake the west made was not colonializing Arabia.....The only attempts made were Egypt and Lebanon....

And Palestine. And Iraq. And Afghanistan (though not technically part of Arabia; but then, neither are Lebanon and Egypt). And, actually come to think of it, the whole freaking place. In fact, it could be that the colonial model-fer instance arbitrarily creating and disposing of states regardles sof the wishes of their residnts-is actually the root of alot of the problems.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Black Dog