Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed because she wrote poetry mocking Islam, the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example.

Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam despite their own texts saying Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed for writing poetry mocking Islam.

#IwilldrawMohammedcartoonswithyou

Another day, another isolated, lone wolf, unrepresentative attack that has nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'.


That all these isolated  incidents are carried out to the shouts of allahu akhbar and to defend the honour of Mohammed and Islam  is puzzling.

" France terror attack is justified by Islam"

Really?  How long have you been a terrorist apologist?

"If it wasn't for Islam, they'd be wonderful law-abiding citizens".

How long can you go on making excuses for these murderers?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

" France terror attack is justified by Islam" Really?  How long have you been a terrorist apologist? "If it wasn't for Islam, they'd be wonderful law-abiding citizens". How long can you go on making excuses for these murderers?

http://makeameme.org/media/created/The-troll-is.jpg

Quantum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 11:53am: " France terror attack is justified by Islam" Really?  How long have you been a terrorist apologist? "If it wasn't for Islam, they'd be wonderful law-abiding citizens". How long can you go on making excuses for these murderers? http://makeameme.org/media/created/The-troll-is.jpg

How long can you go on making excuses for these murderers?

Seriously?

Why do you defend these people?

You should be ashamed.

http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg

Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number.

These perpetrators need to be apprehended and feel the full force of the law.

Of course, no Islamophobe will listen.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:12pm:

http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.

It's too late for some.

They've given in to the terrorists, without the slightest hint of resistance.

Their lives are consumed by irrational fear and hatred; the terrorists have won.

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:12pm:

http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number. These perpetrators need to be apprehended and feel the full force of the law. Of course, no Islamophobe will listen.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Sooooo... is it OK to draw Mohammed cartoons in the West or not?

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:12pm:

Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number.

The terrorists want you to submit to Islam, useful idiots like you have already submitted to Islam,Islam translated from Arabic means submission.

Terror is just one way of making you respect this belief barfed up by a 7th century desert bandit,terror teaches you not to mess with the muslims.

Molly Norris stopped all that draw Muhammad nonsense after muslims threatened her life, the FBI told her to go into hiding.
Of course Islamic apologists like you don't care for the Moly Norris's of the world you say we should respect Islam just like the terrorists want us to.

So it's alright to shine the spotlight on misbehaving Christians to shame them into behaving yet it is not ok to shine the spotlight on Islam hoping they will be shamed into stopping Islamic terror.
Can we disregard the pedos in the church as being a tiny minority or does the tiny minority bullshit only apply to muslims?

A peaceful verse from the Quran,can it be used to condemn or justify this attack?
quran.com/5/33

terror attacks are directed by moh.

he led by example.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:21pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number. These perpetrators need to be apprehended and feel the full force of the law. Of course, no Islamophobe will listen.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Sooooo... is it OK to draw Mohammed cartoons in the West or not?

Of course it's OK, Soren.  Some Muslims don't like it, they're the ones we have to worry about.  The rest couldn't care less.

As Greg has suggested, you've surrendered to the Terrorists.  They now tell you what to think and you think it for them.    ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:21pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  It's too late for some. They've given in to the terrorists, without the slightest hint of resistance.

those with the greatest ignorance of Islam claim to know what Islamic terrorists want.

The best way to give in is to stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad's Islam, there has been enough attacks on cartoonists when are you going to get the message?

I say every paper should publish these cartoons in memory of those killed by devout muslims.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed because she wrote poetry mocking Islam, the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example. Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam despite their own texts saying Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed for writing poetry mocking Islam.

Quote:

Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam

Is this a Nostradamus moment or is someone really saying that ?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  It's too late for some. They've given in to the terrorists, without the slightest hint of resistance. those with the greatest ignorance of Islam claim to know what Islamic terrorists want. The best way to give in is to stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad's Islam, there has been enough attacks on cartoonists when are you going to get the message? I say every paper should publish these cartoons in memory of those killed by devout muslims.

I couldn't agree more.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  It's too late for some. They've given in to the terrorists, without the slightest hint of resistance. those with the greatest ignorance of Islam claim to know what Islamic terrorists want. The best way to give in is to stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad's Islam, there has been enough attacks on cartoonists when are you going to get the message? I say every paper should publish these cartoons in memory of those killed by devout muslims.

so you dont mind the media putting its people in danger as long as it doesnt include you???>...

kind of selfish isnt it???.. how about you walk the main street with a billboard on covered in cartoons of Mohammad ....now that would be interesting..you could stick your middle finger up at the same time....

not sure really what good insulting people does???....do you know the answer? ::) ::)

just think if cartoons insult someone why do it???....

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:42pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  It's too late for some. They've given in to the terrorists, without the slightest hint of resistance. those with the greatest ignorance of Islam claim to know what Islamic terrorists want.

Couldn't agree more Baron!  Why do you keep doing it?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.  In reality they hate you and your religion and want to oppress you and kill you and raze your Mosques!  Come to us, we will protect you and if we can't at least we will make the bastards pay!"


Quote:

The best way to give in is to stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad's Islam, there has been enough attacks on cartoonists when are you going to get the message? I say every paper should publish these cartoons in memory of those killed by devout muslims.

I agree.  I also agree with Cods.  You should put these cartoons on a sandwich board and walk down the street in Lakemba Baron.  Show the Muslims they can't push freeeedom loving patriots like you around!    ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:47pm:

terror attacks are directed by moh. he led by example.

Moh them.

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:29pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:42pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  It's too late for some. They've given in to the terrorists, without the slightest hint of resistance. those with the greatest ignorance of Islam claim to know what Islamic terrorists want. Couldn't agree more Baron!  Why do you keep doing it?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.  In reality they hate you and your religion and want to oppress you and kill you and raze your Mosques!  Come to us, we will protect you and if we can't at least we will make the bastards pay!" Quote: The best way to give in is to stop drawing cartoons of Muhammad's Islam, there has been enough attacks on cartoonists when are you going to get the message? I say every paper should publish these cartoons in memory of those killed by devout muslims. I agree.  I also agree with Cods.  You should put these cartoons on a sandwich board and walk down the street in Lakemba Baron.  Show the Muslims they can't push freeeedom loving patriots like you around!    ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you claim to know what the terrorists want, is that why you call critics of Islam Islamophobes?

You are a bigot who doesn't allow criticism of Islam yet all other religions are fair game, you are a hypocrite who tars all critics of Islam with the same brush.

Can you cite where I have ever called for razing of mosques or violence against muslims?

I have always said the truth is the best weapon against Islam.

Are you saying we should give in to the terrorists and not publish cartoons of Muhammad?

Are you saying we should give in to ideological thuggery and deprive ourselves of our freedoms in case muslims get butthurt and go on a rampage killing people?

If we give in to the muslims over violence with cartoons does that send a message they can get what they want with violence?

It's useful idiots like you who are the problem. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:29pm:

The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.  In reality they hate you and your religion and want to oppress you and kill you and raze your Mosques!  Come to us, we will protect you and if we can't at least we will make the bastards pay!"

So Muslims kill people...
in the name of Islam...
because Islam demands that it kills those who oppose it...

... And those who are the victims of terrorism should not protest this behaviour because it could drive others to being terrorist? Instead they should just shut up and take it.

Is Islam responsible for anything? It drives people to kill, but it is not Islam's fault. Now people pointing out the fault of the religion are responsible for making new terrorist... Not Islam. Islam kills people, people complain, and those that complain are at fault when Islam kills again?

Unfvckingbelievable.

Quantum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:29pm: The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.  In reality they hate you and your religion and want to oppress you and kill you and raze your Mosques!  Come to us, we will protect you and if we can't at least we will make the bastards pay!" So Muslims kill people... in the name of Islam... because Islam demands that it kills those who oppose it... ... And those who are the victims of terrorism should not protest this behaviour because it could drive others to being terrorist? Instead they should just shut up and take it. Is Islam responsible for anything? It drives people to kill, but it is not Islam's fault. Now people pointing out the fault of the religion are responsible for making new terrorist... Not Islam. Islam kills people, people complain, and those that complain are at fault when Islam kills again? Unfvckingbelievable.

that's my thinking too

murder is a command by moh.
he led by example.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed because she wrote poetry mocking Islam, the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example. Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam despite their own texts saying Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed for writing poetry mocking Islam.

Hang em high from the Eiffel Tower:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKITYu7z-AY

Islamophobics' thinking always amazes me.  Invariably it is convoluted and of course grabs at those things that shore up their views of Muslims and Islam, rather than reading what is actually in front of their noses.

At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.  Instead we see the Islamphobic's usual reaction - blame Islam, blame Muslims and call for indiscriminate retribution against Muslims in general.  Quantum, you personally might not have suggested that Mosques should be razed but your compatriot Sprint has, often.  He's also called for all Muslims to be murdered and even Nuked.  He's stated he supports the idea of a pogrom and would like to take part in one.  No other Islamophobe has criticised him for such statements, therefore we must assume that you all support them!

All responses should of course be calmly and well thought out, not the result of hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.  Otherwise as I said, all you're doing is what the Terrorists want you to do. What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done. 

Every innocent Muslim that the West kills creates 10 recruits for the Terrorists.  Every innocent Muslim who dies, provides more justification for the next Terrorist attack.  This doesn't seem to get through to the Islamophobes for some strange reason.  Their bloodlust and their hatred and intolerance blinds them to what they are doing.  They are the mirror-image of the Terrorists in so many ways.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

Islamophobics' thinking always amazes me.  Invariably it is convoluted and of course grabs at those things that shore up their views of Muslims and Islam, rather than reading what is actually in front of their noses. At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.  Instead we see the Islamphobic's usual reaction - blame Islam, blame Muslims and call for indiscriminate retribution against Muslims in general.  Quantum, you personally might not have suggested that Mosques should be razed but your compatriot Sprint has, often.  He's also called for all Muslims to be murdered and even Nuked.  He's stated he supports the idea of a pogrom and would like to take part in one.  No other Islamophobe has criticised him for such statements, therefore we must assume that you all support them! All responses should of course be calmly and well thought out, not the result of hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.  Otherwise as I said, all you're doing is what the Terrorists want you to do. What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done.  Every innocent Muslim that the West kills creates 10 recruits for the Terrorists.  Every innocent Muslim who dies, provides more justification for the next Terrorist attack.  This doesn't seem to get through to the Islamophobes for some strange reason.  Their bloodlust and their hatred and intolerance blinds them to what they are doing.  They are the mirror-image of the Terrorists in so many ways.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

terrorist sympathiser!

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:12pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 11:13am: Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed because she wrote poetry mocking Islam, the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example. Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam despite their own texts saying Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed for writing poetry mocking Islam. Hang em high from the Eiffel Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKITYu7z-AY

You'd like to see a couple of French men well hung, would you bobby?

Oh là là

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:21pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Islamophobics' thinking always amazes me.  Invariably it is convoluted and of course grabs at those things that shore up their views of Muslims and Islam, rather than reading what is actually in front of their noses. At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.  Instead we see the Islamphobic's usual reaction - blame Islam, blame Muslims and call for indiscriminate retribution against Muslims in general.  Quantum, you personally might not have suggested that Mosques should be razed but your compatriot Sprint has, often.  He's also called for all Muslims to be murdered and even Nuked.  He's stated he supports the idea of a pogrom and would like to take part in one.  No other Islamophobe has criticised him for such statements, therefore we must assume that you all support them! All responses should of course be calmly and well thought out, not the result of hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.  Otherwise as I said, all you're doing is what the Terrorists want you to do. What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done.  Every innocent Muslim that the West kills creates 10 recruits for the Terrorists.  Every innocent Muslim who dies, provides more justification for the next Terrorist attack.  This doesn't seem to get through to the Islamophobes for some strange reason.  Their bloodlust and their hatred and intolerance blinds them to what they are doing.  They are the mirror-image of the Terrorists in so many ways.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D terrorist sympathiser!

Where?  Where?  Bobby, instead of just making an exclamation, how about you provide an explanation.  Show me anything that is sympathetic to Terrorism in those comments.   Or will that be too hard?  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:12pm:

Hang em high from the Eiffel Tower:

We always be assured that you'll post your standard clips from "Hang 'em High" or "The Pit and the Pendulum" Bobby.  Like the sun rising in the east, you'll be there with your URLs on speed dial!    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Islamophobics' thinking always amazes me.  Invariably it is convoluted and of course grabs at those things that shore up their views of Muslims and Islam, rather than reading what is actually in front of their noses. At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.  Instead we see the Islamphobic's usual reaction - blame Islam, blame Muslims and call for indiscriminate retribution against Muslims in general.  Quantum, you personally might not have suggested that Mosques should be razed but your compatriot Sprint has, often.  He's also called for all Muslims to be murdered and even Nuked.  He's stated he supports the idea of a pogrom and would like to take part in one.  No other Islamophobe has criticised him for such statements, therefore we must assume that you all support them! All responses should of course be calmly and well thought out, not the result of hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.  Otherwise as I said, all you're doing is what the Terrorists want you to do. What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done.  Every innocent Muslim that the West kills creates 10 recruits for the Terrorists.  Every innocent Muslim who dies, provides more justification for the next Terrorist attack.  This doesn't seem to get through to the Islamophobes for some strange reason.  Their bloodlust and their hatred and intolerance blinds them to what they are doing.  They are the mirror-image of the Terrorists in so many ways.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D terrorist sympathiser! Where?  Where?  Bobby, instead of just making an exclamation, how about you provide an explanation.  Show me anything that is sympathetic to Terrorism in those comments.   Or will that be too hard?  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

The Mussies are ones with the hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Islamophobics' thinking always amazes me.  Invariably it is convoluted and of course grabs at those things that shore up their views of Muslims and Islam, rather than reading what is actually in front of their noses. At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.  Instead we see the Islamphobic's usual reaction - blame Islam, blame Muslims and call for indiscriminate retribution against Muslims in general.  Quantum, you personally might not have suggested that Mosques should be razed but your compatriot Sprint has, often.  He's also called for all Muslims to be murdered and even Nuked.  He's stated he supports the idea of a pogrom and would like to take part in one.  No other Islamophobe has criticised him for such statements, therefore we must assume that you all support them! All responses should of course be calmly and well thought out, not the result of hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.  Otherwise as I said, all you're doing is what the Terrorists want you to do. What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done.  Every innocent Muslim that the West kills creates 10 recruits for the Terrorists.  Every innocent Muslim who dies, provides more justification for the next Terrorist attack.  This doesn't seem to get through to the Islamophobes for some strange reason.  Their bloodlust and their hatred and intolerance blinds them to what they are doing.  They are the mirror-image of the Terrorists in so many ways.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D terrorist sympathiser! Where?  Where?  Bobby, instead of just making an exclamation, how about you provide an explanation.  Show me anything that is sympathetic to Terrorism in those comments.   Or will that be too hard?  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D The Mussies are ones with the hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.

How does that answer my question Bobby?  Where is the "sympathy" you've claimed to read in my post for Terrorism or Terrorists?   I can't see it.  As someone used to say, "Please explain!"    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:17pm: Islamophobics' thinking always amazes me.  Invariably it is convoluted and of course grabs at those things that shore up their views of Muslims and Islam, rather than reading what is actually in front of their noses. At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.  Instead we see the Islamphobic's usual reaction - blame Islam, blame Muslims and call for indiscriminate retribution against Muslims in general.  Quantum, you personally might not have suggested that Mosques should be razed but your compatriot Sprint has, often.  He's also called for all Muslims to be murdered and even Nuked.  He's stated he supports the idea of a pogrom and would like to take part in one.  No other Islamophobe has criticised him for such statements, therefore we must assume that you all support them! All responses should of course be calmly and well thought out, not the result of hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.  Otherwise as I said, all you're doing is what the Terrorists want you to do. What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?  It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done.  Every innocent Muslim that the West kills creates 10 recruits for the Terrorists.  Every innocent Muslim who dies, provides more justification for the next Terrorist attack.  This doesn't seem to get through to the Islamophobes for some strange reason.  Their bloodlust and their hatred and intolerance blinds them to what they are doing.  They are the mirror-image of the Terrorists in so many ways.   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D terrorist sympathiser! Where?  Where?  Bobby, instead of just making an exclamation, how about you provide an explanation.  Show me anything that is sympathetic to Terrorism in those comments.   Or will that be too hard?  ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D The Mussies are ones with the hot-blooded hatred and a thirst for revenge.

Is Sprint a Mussie?

You know Sprint, don't you?

"Kill them"

"Raze every Mosque to the ground"

He seems to have an awful lot of hot-blooded hatred, and an insatiable thirst for revenge.

Is he a Mussie?

Gunmen shoots cop who was on the ground supposedly in the head, head doesnt bleed or splatter


http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/01/07/paris-fake-terrorism/

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:58pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:29pm: The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.  In reality they hate you and your religion and want to oppress you and kill you and raze your Mosques!  Come to us, we will protect you and if we can't at least we will make the bastards pay!" So Muslims kill people... in the name of Islam... because Islam demands that it kills those who oppose it... ... And those who are the victims of terrorism should not protest this behaviour because it could drive others to being terrorist? Instead they should just shut up and take it. Is Islam responsible for anything? It drives people to kill, but it is not Islam's fault. Now people pointing out the fault of the religion are responsible for making new terrorist... Not Islam. Islam kills people, people complain, and those that complain are at fault when Islam kills again? Unfvckingbelievable. that's my thinking too murder is a command by moh. he led by example.

You left out the bit about the muslims becoming the victims in this because of Islamophobia.

Jihad Jane is a blond haired blue eyed woman from the USA who converted to Islam, she is in jail for plotting to kill a cartoonist.
I wonder what motivated her to do that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_LaRose

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/1/8/1420696235280/5e7ac5b5-9748-456d-944e-84abb6304fac-737x1020.jpeg

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:04pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:58pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:29pm: The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.  In reality they hate you and your religion and want to oppress you and kill you and raze your Mosques!  Come to us, we will protect you and if we can't at least we will make the bastards pay!" So Muslims kill people... in the name of Islam... because Islam demands that it kills those who oppose it... ... And those who are the victims of terrorism should not protest this behaviour because it could drive others to being terrorist? Instead they should just shut up and take it. Is Islam responsible for anything? It drives people to kill, but it is not Islam's fault. Now people pointing out the fault of the religion are responsible for making new terrorist... Not Islam. Islam kills people, people complain, and those that complain are at fault when Islam kills again? Unfvckingbelievable. that's my thinking too murder is a command by moh. he led by example. You left out the bit about the muslims becoming the victims in this because of Islamophobia. Jihad Jane is a blond haired blue eyed woman from the USA who converted to Islam, she is in jail for plotting to kill a cartoonist. I wonder what motivated her to do that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_LaRose

Quote:

Some terrorism experts pointed to LaRose's apparent mental instability...

Appears you failed to read your own URL Baron!   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't worry it is just an isolated incident by regular old criminals. But be ready for the same old platitudes from world leaders, solidarity, we will not be intimidated, democracy will not bow, blah blah etc.

Hear is a much abbreviated list of some high profile Muhammadan - Koranic inspired atrocities:

1990       EgyptAir 990  217k (co pilot’s Islamic rant recorded)

1998      Nairobi:            224 killed, 4500, maimed.

1999      Moscow            293k       651m

2001      New York           2996k  6000+

2002      Bali      202k      209m

2002      Moscow      170k      700+

2003      Philippines  21k      146+

2004      Madrid      191k      1800

2005      London      52k      700+

2005      Indonesia 3 Christian schoolgirls beheaded.

2006      India Railways      186k      ?maimed

2007      Baghdad market      131k      186

2008      Mombai        164k      600+

2009      Texas      13k( 1pregnant)  30 m

2010      Moscow      40k      100+

2011      Mombai      26k      130

2012      China      2k      13

2012      Yemen      120+      600+

2013      Pushawar (Pak)      85k      100+

2014      China      28k      13
2014      Nigeria                        5000 killed  since 2009.

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number. These perpetrators need to be apprehended and feel the full force of the law. Of course, no Islamophobe will listen.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Sooooo... is it OK to draw Mohammed cartoons in the West or not? Of course it's OK, Soren.  Some Muslims don't like it, they're the ones we have to worry about.

How do you tell them apart BEFORE they kill you?

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/1/8/1420696235280/5e7ac5b5-9748-456d-944e-84abb6304fac-737x1020.jpeg

What a craven coward this FDOTM is.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 5:21pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:55pm: Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number. These perpetrators need to be apprehended and feel the full force of the law. Of course, no Islamophobe will listen.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Sooooo... is it OK to draw Mohammed cartoons in the West or not? Of course it's OK, Soren.  Some Muslims don't like it, they're the ones we have to worry about.  How do you tell them apart BEFORE they kill you?

How do you tell the good Christians from the bad Christians BEFORE they kill you?

Or the good Hindus from the bad Hindus BEFORE they kill you?

Perhaps we could ask them but really, you can't condemn people on what they say.   That'd be prejudice Soren but I suspect you'd be happy to apply it to only Muslims of course...   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 5:31pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 5:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:55pm: Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:21pm: |dev|null wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:12pm: http://www.thecanvasartfactory.com.au/store/product_images/r/528/371BR_Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On_Black__67246_zoom.jpg Stop letting the Terrorists tell you what to do.  Stop producing the reaction they want.  Stop blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a tiny number. These perpetrators need to be apprehended and feel the full force of the law. Of course, no Islamophobe will listen.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Sooooo... is it OK to draw Mohammed cartoons in the West or not? Of course it's OK, Soren.  Some Muslims don't like it, they're the ones we have to worry about.  How do you tell them apart BEFORE they kill you? How do you tell the good Christians from the bad Christians BEFORE they kill you? Or the good Hindus from the bad Hindus BEFORE they kill you? Perhaps we could ask them but really, you can't condemn people on what they say.   That'd be prejudice Soren but I suspect you'd be happy to apply it to only Muslims of course...   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

When was the last time a Christian shot up a newspaper for printing Jesus cartoons? A hindu? WHen was the last time a Christian took hostages in a cafe in the name of Jesus? Beheaded reporters and aid workers on Youtube in the name of Jesus?

Never.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:12pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 11:13am: Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed because she wrote poetry mocking Islam, the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example. Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam despite their own texts saying Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed for writing poetry mocking Islam. Hang em high from the Eiffel Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKITYu7z-AY You'd like to see a couple of French men well hung, would you bobby? Oh là là

Greggy is gay.

wally1 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Gunmen shoots cop who was on the ground supposedly in the head, head doesnt bleed or splatter http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/01/07/paris-fake-terrorism/

many blessings yes

look at the video there is no blood

anyoneone with half an eyeball can see that

yet the wowsers lose their junk into fear

inside job fear not it is exposed

namaste

Islamic Law forbids Terrorism
By Juan Cole
Apr. 17, 2013


Here are the top ten ways that Islamic law and tradition forbid terrorism :

1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”

4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.

5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)

6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”

7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.

8. The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)

9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” [5:8]

10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.

    Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”


http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013

An awful lot of Muslims do not seem to know this.
Otherwise there would not be so many Muslim terrorist organisations.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm: Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 An awful lot of Muslims do not seem to know this. Otherwise there would not be so many Muslim terrorist organisations.

Juan cole eh?  Sounds like a real moslem name. 

it_is_the_light wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

wally1 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:40pm: Gunmen shoots cop who was on the ground supposedly in the head, head doesnt bleed or splatter http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/01/07/paris-fake-terrorism/ many blessings yes look at the video there is no blood anyoneone with half an eyeball can see that yet the wowsers lose their junk into fear inside job fear not it is exposed namaste

Actually he was mowed down with machine gun, still didnt bleed, he then managed to try and get up and got shot in his head 30 cm away from the gun and blood still didnt come out.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 7:14pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm: Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 An awful lot of Muslims do not seem to know this. Otherwise there would not be so many Muslim terrorist organisations.

If they DON'T know this - and don't ADHERE to this - they are not practicing Muslims

Just common murderers, hiding behind the Islam faith

... wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 7:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 7:14pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm: Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 An awful lot of Muslims do not seem to know this. Otherwise there would not be so many Muslim terrorist organisations. Juan cole eh?  Sounds like a real moslem name.

Why does he need a Muslim NAME ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:23pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 4:12pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 11:13am: Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed because she wrote poetry mocking Islam, the Quran tells you to follow Muhammad's example. Muslims in damage control will claim this latest terror attack had nothing to do with Islam despite their own texts saying Muhammad had Asma bint Marwan killed for writing poetry mocking Islam. Hang em high from the Eiffel Tower: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKITYu7z-AY You'd like to see a couple of French men well hung, would you bobby? Oh là là Greggy is gay.

Why do you always want to see hung men, sir booby?

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

... wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 7:15pm: Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 7:14pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm: Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 An awful lot of Muslims do not seem to know this. Otherwise there would not be so many Muslim terrorist organisations. Juan cole eh?  Sounds like a real moslem name.  Why does he need a Muslim NAME ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Cole

Substitute "black" for "moslem"

https://i.imgflip.com/g2mu7.jpg

HB:


Quote:

Of course it's OK, Soren.  Some Muslims don't like it, they're the ones we have to worry about.  The rest couldn't care less.

Gandalf cares, and as far as I can tell he isn't chopping people's heads off. He wants to calmly and politely destroy freedom of speech.


Quote:

so you dont mind the media putting its people in danger as long as it doesnt include you???>...

Cods self censorship is the worst possible response to these attacks on freedom of speech.


Quote:

not sure really what good insulting people does???....do you know the answer?

I am going to dig up some of those cartoons and post them. The 'good' it does is defending freedom of speech.


Quote:

The Terrorists want a kneejerk reaction from Islamophobes like you

Do you think they want more of these cartoons published? Do you think they want the west to unite in defense of freedom of speech?


Quote:

so what when you attack innocent Muslims you drive them into the arms of the Terrorists who can point out, "Look, all their talk about being a liberal, Democratic society which is tolerant of pluralism is just lies.

If publishing cartoons causes Muslims to join up with terrorists, then all their platitudes about not really being against the fundamental values of the civilised societies they have joined really were just lies.


Quote:

I agree.  I also agree with Cods.  You should put these cartoons on a sandwich board and walk down the street in Lakemba Baron.

We should do it in the thousands, then join the Muslims for a BBQ on the footpath out the front of their mosque so they can demonstrate that they too support freedom of speech.


Quote:

At no point did I say that we should not oppose the Terrorists and their Islamist/Salafist interpretation of Islam.  In fact, that is exactly what I'd like to see happen, some nice, selective, targeted responses to what ever Terrorist attack has occurred.

We should limit ourselves to respond in the manner that you and the other apologists and Muslims approve of?


Quote:

What do you think bin Laden wanted to happen after his followers flew those planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?

Die? Have the taliban lose control of Afghanistan? Have America walk out of the place and leave Muslims squabbling over their new democracy?


Quote:

It wasn't for the Americans and the West to sit back and think about what they should do, he wanted them to bomb the crap out of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan, so that they'd support al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is exactly what they've done.

That's funny, they didn't vote for them. there's a reason that Bin Ladens followers in Afghanistan oppose democracy to the death. They know what is going on and they know these words of yorus are BS.


Quote:

How does that answer my question Bobby?  Where is the "sympathy" you've claimed to read in my post for Terrorism or Terrorists?   I can't see it.  As someone used to say, "Please explain!"

You sympathise with them when you blame the west, or anyone but the terrorists, for their terrorism. You sympathise with them when you insist that the only reasonable response is to let them rape and pillage their way across the world, because standing up to them is what causes terrorism. You sympathise with them by constantly spewing your useful idiot garbage.


Quote:

Gunmen shoots cop who was on the ground supposedly in the head, head doesnt bleed or splatter

Thanks Wally. It is good to see the Muslims and apologists already looking for some alternative explanation, bar the obvious.


Quote:

Actually he was mowed down with machine gun, still didnt bleed, he then managed to try and get up and got shot in his head 30 cm away from the gun and blood still didnt come out.

Yes Wally I am sure it is all a grand conspiracy to make Islam look bad. If it doesn't look like a Tarantino movie it must be fake eh?


Quote:

If they DON'T know this - and don't ADHERE to this - they are not practicing Muslims Just common murderers, hiding behind the Islam faith

Well done Buzz. They come from a long line of common murderers hiding behind Islam's name. Like that Muhammed bloke.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 7:14pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 6:58pm: Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 An awful lot of Muslims do not seem to know this. Otherwise there would not be so many Muslim terrorist organisations. If they DON'T know this - and don't ADHERE to this - they are not practicing Muslims Just common murderers, hiding behind the Islam faith

Funny how these "common murders" love to hide behind the Islamic faith. How unlucky is the "religion of peace" that all these nuts choose Islam to hide behind? They could choose any religion or cause, but they always choose Islam despite Islam haven nothing at all to do with murder and violence...

Actually, come to think of it, why do they need to choose Islam at all to hide behind? Plenty of people go around killing without needing to hide behind anything. Yet for some reason someone who is choosing to blow themselves up needs to hide behind a religion? Why? Why do dead people who have blown themselves up to kill others need everyone to know that they did it for Islam if it isn't true? What exactly is the benefit in hiding behind Islam if you will be dead anyway and you're not actually a Muslim?

The lack of logic by the apologist is becoming funny. Any excuse to remove Islam from terror. Yesterday was just another group of nuts that are just hiding behind Islam. They kill in the name of Islam. They kill those who insult Islam. But they have nothing to do with Islam. Islam again is just so unlucky that one crazy killer that has nothing do with Islam, meet up with another crazy killer that has nothing to do with Islam, and used Islam as an excuse to go on a shooting spree. How unlucky can this innocent peaceful religion be?

One last thing, I love the way a discredited quack like Juan can make a case for how Islam is against murder, and the usual lefty homo's just swallow every bit of it; 'Self proclaimed expert says Islam is against murder and anyone who kills is not really a Muslim. Fantastic! I can now just ignore every bit of common sense and parrot what this expert says so I can look oh so tolerant and cultured. Thank you Juan!' 

Quantum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:10pm:

... the usual lefty homo's ...

An Islamophobe AND a homophobe.

How delightful.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful.

Greg - you are so gay.   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful.

But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful.

Quantum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point.

Mentioning people's sexual preferences when discussing murder?

No.  Not even close to being valid.

Your Islamophobia AND homophobia have been duly noted though.

Quantum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful.

If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy for such stupid people even peccarbrain, i wouldnt even encourage any rescue of such people,ID SAY DAMN EM I would almost see poetic justice somewhere in there for these stupid people.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. Greg - you are so gay.   ;D

Sir Booby, this is not a gay pickup site.  Stop fishing.

I'm sure you will find your well hung man in due course.

Be patient.


http://www.tapi-online.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Neue-Setfotos-von-The-Dark-Knight-Rises_92C0/The-Gay-Knight-Rises.jpg

stryder wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:29pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ...

Nobody is surprised by that admission.

"Qualities of a Sociopath:

"• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... "

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. Greg - you are so gay.   ;D Sir Booby, this is not a gay pickup site.  Stop fishing. I'm sure you will find your well hung man in due course. Be patient. http://www.tapi-online.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Neue-Setfotos-von-The-Dark-Knight-Rises_92C0/The-Gay-Knight-Rises.jpg

Posting Gay pics.    :o

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:32pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. Greg - you are so gay.   ;D Sir Booby, this is not a gay pickup site.  Stop fishing. I'm sure you will find your well hung man in due course. Be patient. http://www.tapi-online.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Neue-Setfotos-von-The-Dark-Knight-Rises_92C0/The-Gay-Knight-Rises.jpg Posting Gay pics.    :o

Sorry if it got you all excited.

Perhaps you should clean your keyboard     :-/


http://www.destinationsdreamsanddogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/regular-facial-tissues-2ply.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:36pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... Nobody is surprised by that admission. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... " http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

Oh you wouldnt believe how sympathic i can be with lots and lots of people, its just people like you PECCARBRAIN whom i find quite disturbing and beyond just a scum. and YOUR THE ONLY ONE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT IN THIS ENTIRE SITE, the rest are ok one way or another with me with a few @******* here and there. BUT NOTHING LIKE YOU.

stryder wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... Nobody is surprised by that admission. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... " http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html Oh you wouldnt believe how sympathic i can be with lots and lots of people, its just people like you PECCARBRAIN whom i find quite disturbing and beyond just a scum. and YOUR THE ONLY ONE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT IN THIS ENTIRE SITE, the rest are ok one way or another with me with a few @******* here and there. BUT NOTHING LIKE YOU.

"Qualities of a Sociopath:

"• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... Nobody is surprised by that admission. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... " http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html Oh you wouldnt believe how sympathic i can be with lots and lots of people, its just people like you PECCARBRAIN whom i find quite disturbing and beyond just a scum. and YOUR THE ONLY ONE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT IN THIS ENTIRE SITE, the rest are ok one way or another with me with a few @******* here and there. BUT NOTHING LIKE YOU. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized".

IDIOT from free dictionary
1.  A person who is considered foolish or stupid.

2.  A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers.

;D ;D ;D, it fits you to a tee, peccarbrain

"• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers"

It's all making sense.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:

"• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers" It's all making sense.

Thats your best is it,  :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful.

I'm yet to meet an Islamophobe that wasn't a homophobe - and vice-verca

... usually with a healthy dose of racism tossed in, for good measure

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. I'm yet to meet an Islamophobe that wasn't a homophobe - and vice-verca ... usually with a healthy dose of racism tossed in, for good measure

So whats worse ??

Islamphobia or ISLAMO VIOLENCE.

Greg is gay.

stryder wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:55pm: "• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers" It's all making sense. Thats your best is it,  :D :D :D

No.  This was my best:

"Qualities of a Sociopath: Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions"

In response to this:

"If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... "

At least everyone here knows what we're dealing with now.

You have a pleasant evening, young man.

;D
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:57pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:55pm: "• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers" It's all making sense. Thats your best is it,  :D :D :D No.  This was my best: "Qualities of a Sociopath: Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions" In response to this: "If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... " At least everyone here knows what we're dealing with now. You have a pleasant evening, young man.

;D ;D ;D, Yeah thats right, Im just somebody who simply doesnt like you.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Greg is gay.

Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:01pm:

Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized". "• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers" "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions"

Qualities of a Muslim:

• See above.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... Nobody is surprised by that admission. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... " http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html Oh you wouldnt believe how sympathic i can be with lots and lots of people, its just people like you PECCARBRAIN whom i find quite disturbing and beyond just a scum. and YOUR THE ONLY ONE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT IN THIS ENTIRE SITE, the rest are ok one way or another with me with a few @******* here and there. BUT NOTHING LIKE YOU. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized".

Ah. This explains the old boy’s aversion to any criticism of Freudianism.or Lutheranism.

No one has the right to not be offended, you know. Except the old boy.

He’s exhempt.

Quantum wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:01pm: Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized". "• Grandiose self image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions. A sociopath might see themselves as a fitting ruler of a country or even the world, but might also have delusional beliefs such as seeing themselves as a God or having super powers" "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions" Qualities of a Muslim: • See above.

Hang on quantum, peccarbrain has more rage and anger for Islamophobes than he does for Islamo facist killers, even though no muslim in australia was killed in retribution against what happend in the lindt coffee shop in martin place, BUT TWO PEOPLE LOST THERE LIVES BY THAT ISLAMO FACIST BELIEVING KILLER.

stryder wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me.

Would you trust him in a communal shower?

Karnal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:48pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... Nobody is surprised by that admission. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... " http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html Oh you wouldnt believe how sympathic i can be with lots and lots of people, its just people like you PECCARBRAIN whom i find quite disturbing and beyond just a scum. and YOUR THE ONLY ONE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT IN THIS ENTIRE SITE, the rest are ok one way or another with me with a few @******* here and there. BUT NOTHING LIKE YOU. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized". Ah. This explains the old boy’s aversion to.any criticism.of Freudianism.or Lutheranism. No one has the right to not be offended, you know. Except the old boy.

Karnal who ??? am i supposed to take you seriously, what you dont follow and stalk MATTY ANYMORE ?????? what happened, ? falling out ;D ;D ;D

Im sorry i dont take you seriously, i never have, and it looks like from your post there, I NEVER WILL.  :D

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 [size=12]Here are the top ten ways that Islamic law and tradition forbid terrorism : 1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” 2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it. 3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. 4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. 6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent 7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.

The apologists are out in force, they are mainly brain dead lefties who vote greens.

I guess Juan Cole didn't read the 600 page Qadri fatwa that was supposed to outlaw Islamic terror, if Islamic terror is unislamic why did Qadri need 600 pages for his fatwa.

1.Lets look at what 6/151 says does it differ from Juan Cole BS?-
quran.com/6/151
5/53 says something about becoming losers has your Juan cole even read the Quran?
quran.com/5/53
Does he really mean 5/32, why does he leave out the bit about the children of Israel that verse doesn't apply to muslims.

Quote:

We decreed upon the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul quran.com/5/32

6.Does 5/33 forbid spreading terror i would say it encourages it and could be used to justify this latest attack-
quran.com/5/33

Sneak attacks are forbidden, lmao at this idiot,Muhammad was the master of sneak attacks, this verse will explain his dating methods in gaining Juwairiya as a wife, many in the Islamic state copy his dating methods.
sunnah.com/muslim/32/1

Answer this Buzz and smoked J, if islamic terror is unislamic why did Qadri need a 600 page fatwa to outlaw it?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Greg is gay.

He does give the impression of being happy and care free.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:16pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower?

I use soap on a rope for communal showers

stryder wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:18pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:48pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:36pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:29pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Quantum wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:10pm: ... the usual lefty homo's ... An Islamophobe AND a homophobe. How delightful. But it's a valid point. The first people to have their heads cut off by the "religion of peace" will be lefty homos, yet they are the first to ignore every danger Islam offers and continue to pretend that it is genuinely peaceful. If that ever did happen, I wouldnt have any sympathy ... Nobody is surprised by that admission. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others ... " http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html Oh you wouldnt believe how sympathic i can be with lots and lots of people, its just people like you PECCARBRAIN whom i find quite disturbing and beyond just a scum. and YOUR THE ONLY ONE I FEEL THIS WAY ABOUT IN THIS ENTIRE SITE, the rest are ok one way or another with me with a few @******* here and there. BUT NOTHING LIKE YOU. "Qualities of a Sociopath: "• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized". Ah. This explains the old boy’s aversion to.any criticism.of Freudianism.or Lutheranism. No one has the right to not be offended, you know. Except the old boy. Karnal who ??? am i supposed to take you seriously, what you dont follow and stalk MATTY ANYMORE ?????? what happened, ? falling out ;D ;D ;D Im sorry i dont take you seriously, i never have, and it looks like from your post there, I NEVER WILL.  :D

Now now, Stryker, even Jesus takes Lucifer seriously.

The price of Freeedom is eternal vigilance, you know.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:16pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower?

Do you use communal showers, Bobbie?

Ooooh.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

Islamic Law forbids Terrorism By Juan Cole Apr. 17, 2013 Here are the top ten ways that Islamic law and tradition forbid terrorism : 1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.” 2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it. 3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.” 4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult. 5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”) 6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .” 7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice. 8. The Prophet Muhammad counseled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi) 9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” [5:8] 10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.     Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.” http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

so any day now the muzzies will read thee pages and realise they were wrong ?

I don't think so.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:16pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower? I use soap on a rope for communal showers

LOL

Karnal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:16pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower? Do you use communal showers, Bobbie? Ooooh.

About 15 years ago I used a communal shower at a swimming pool facility
& I noticed that a bloke was looking at me.
I got out of there fast.

I've never been back there.
It was creepy.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

I am going to dig up some of those cartoons and post them. The 'good' it does is defending freedom of speech.

Quote:

We can defend Charlie Hebdo without endorsing it By Jeff Sparrow Updated about an hour agoFri 9 Jan 2015, 6:28am We should condemn the Paris killers, but that doesn't mean we must circulate the work of Charlie Hebdo. You can uphold their right to safety without endorsing the racialised stereotypes they published, writes Jeff Sparrow. No one should be killed for drawing a cartoon. Nor for writing an article, or for editing or publishing one. It doesn't matter whether you live in Paris or Sydney, New York or Baghdad - expressing an opinion shouldn't be a death sentence. That's all that needs to be said about free speech and the awful murders in France. Or at least it should be. But in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, it's being argued that, rather than merely condemning the killers, we should, in the name of free speech, republish the magazine's work. And that's something quite different. Last July, the Sydney Morning Herald published a cartoon by Glen Le Lievre about the conflict in Palestine. The image showed an elderly man sitting on an armchair using a remote control device to explode bombs in Gaza. The figure, with an exaggeratedly large nose, was wearing a skullcap; his chair was decorated with the Star of David. Fairfax (correctly, in my view) subsequently apologised for the cartoon: the tropes were, the paper said, uncomfortably close to classical anti-Semitism: The Herald now appreciates that, in using the Star of David and the kippah in the cartoon, the newspaper invoked an inappropriate element of religion, rather than nationhood, and made a serious error of judgment. It was wrong to publish the cartoon in its original form. Had someone subsequently attacked the artist, would that have changed our opinion of the image in question? Would it have been necessary to endorse - or even republish - an anti-Jewish cartoon to defend its creator from harm? To put it another way, you don't have to like the project of Charlie Hedbo to defend its artists from murder, just as you can uphold media workers' right to safety without endorsing the imagery they produce. That might seem entirely obvious. But it needs to be said for, if the SMH cartoon was bigoted, so too was much of what Charlie Hebdo published. Jacob Canfield offers a sample of the magazine's work. Have a look for yourself. It's a gallery of racialised stereotypes: image after image of leering hook-nosed Muslims, with bushy beards and hijabs. As Canfield says: These are, by even the most generous assessment, incredibly racist cartoons. Hebdo's goal is to provoke, and these cartoons make it very clear who the white editorial staff was interested in provoking: France's incredibly marginalized, often attacked, Muslim immigrant community. Once more and again, we can condemn those who kill artists for their art without pretending there's something admirable in xenophobic clichés, particularly given the rising racial tensions across Europe. Earlier this week, 18,000 people marched in Dresden under the banner of PEGIDA - or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West - demanding a harsh crackdown on immigrants. The group's been dubbed "the pinstripe Nazis", in a country that doesn't use references to National Socialism lightly. Similar groups are on the rise all across the continent, including in France, where the National Front has reached new levels of popularity, despite a lineage traceable back to old-style Jew-baiting fascism. Already, the far Right is making political capital from this crime. The circulation of Islamophobic images, even if intended as a gesture of solidarity with the victims, will help normalise a bigotry that's the bread and butter of the National Front and its ilk. Many of us remember the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when politicians and media pundits stampeded each other into a whole gamut of responses, almost all of which proved to be disastrous. So right now would be a good time to calm down, to refrain from hashtag politics and kneejerk reactions. What's happened is bad enough. Let's not make matters worse. Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland literary journal and the author of Killing: Misadventures in Violence. On Twitter, he is @Jeff_Sparrow. View his full profile here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-09/sparrow-we-should-support-charlie-hebdo-not-endorse-it/6007836

Bobby. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:53pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:16pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower? Do you use communal showers, Bobbie? Ooooh. About 15 years ago I used a communal shower at a swimming pool facility

Ah, so that's where it all started.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:53pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:16pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower? Do you use communal showers, Bobbie? Ooooh. About 15 years ago I used a communal shower at a swimming pool facility & I noticed that a bloke was looking at me. I got out of there fast. I've never been back there. It was creepy.

You have led a very sheltered life, haven't you Bobby?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

wally1 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:40pm:

Gunmen shoots cop who was on the ground supposedly in the head, head doesnt bleed or splatter http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/01/07/paris-fake-terrorism/

The cop was a muslim he has been named, if they have a funeral for him does that debunk your conspiracyclub?

Indeed Baron - and I'm so looking forward to your barrage of rhetorical questions to either smear him or argue how he wasn't a muslim at all.

Whatever it will take to ensure that a muslim doesn't receive any sympathy for this attack.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:40am:

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: I am going to dig up some of those cartoons and post them. The 'good' it does is defending freedom of speech. Quote: We can defend Charlie Hebdo without endorsing it By Jeff Sparrow Updated about an hour agoFri 9 Jan 2015, 6:28am We should condemn the Paris killers, but that doesn't mean we must circulate the work of Charlie Hebdo. You can uphold their right to safety without endorsing the racialised stereotypes they published, writes Jeff Sparrow. No one should be killed for drawing a cartoon. Nor for writing an article, or for editing or publishing one. It doesn't matter whether you live in Paris or Sydney, New York or Baghdad - expressing an opinion shouldn't be a death sentence. That's all that needs to be said about free speech and the awful murders in France. Or at least it should be. But in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, it's being argued that, rather than merely condemning the killers, we should, in the name of free speech, republish the magazine's work. And that's something quite different. Last July, the Sydney Morning Herald published a cartoon by Glen Le Lievre about the conflict in Palestine. The image showed an elderly man sitting on an armchair using a remote control device to explode bombs in Gaza. The figure, with an exaggeratedly large nose, was wearing a skullcap; his chair was decorated with the Star of David. Fairfax (correctly, in my view) subsequently apologised for the cartoon: the tropes were, the paper said, uncomfortably close to classical anti-Semitism: The Herald now appreciates that, in using the Star of David and the kippah in the cartoon, the newspaper invoked an inappropriate element of religion, rather than nationhood, and made a serious error of judgment. It was wrong to publish the cartoon in its original form. Had someone subsequently attacked the artist, would that have changed our opinion of the image in question? Would it have been necessary to endorse - or even republish - an anti-Jewish cartoon to defend its creator from harm? To put it another way, you don't have to like the project of Charlie Hedbo to defend its artists from murder, just as you can uphold media workers' right to safety without endorsing the imagery they produce. That might seem entirely obvious. But it needs to be said for, if the SMH cartoon was bigoted, so too was much of what Charlie Hebdo published. Jacob Canfield offers a sample of the magazine's work. Have a look for yourself. It's a gallery of racialised stereotypes: image after image of leering hook-nosed Muslims, with bushy beards and hijabs. As Canfield says: These are, by even the most generous assessment, incredibly racist cartoons. Hebdo's goal is to provoke, and these cartoons make it very clear who the white editorial staff was interested in provoking: France's incredibly marginalized, often attacked, Muslim immigrant community. Once more and again, we can condemn those who kill artists for their art without pretending there's something admirable in xenophobic clichés, particularly given the rising racial tensions across Europe. Earlier this week, 18,000 people marched in Dresden under the banner of PEGIDA - or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West - demanding a harsh crackdown on immigrants. The group's been dubbed "the pinstripe Nazis", in a country that doesn't use references to National Socialism lightly. Similar groups are on the rise all across the continent, including in France, where the National Front has reached new levels of popularity, despite a lineage traceable back to old-style Jew-baiting fascism. Already, the far Right is making political capital from this crime. The circulation of Islamophobic images, even if intended as a gesture of solidarity with the victims, will help normalise a bigotry that's the bread and butter of the National Front and its ilk. Many of us remember the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when politicians and media pundits stampeded each other into a whole gamut of responses, almost all of which proved to be disastrous. So right now would be a good time to calm down, to refrain from hashtag politics and kneejerk reactions. What's happened is bad enough. Let's not make matters worse. Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland literary journal and the author of Killing: Misadventures in Violence. On Twitter, he is @Jeff_Sparrow. View his full profile here. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-09/sparrow-we-should-support-charlie-hebdo-not-endorse-it/6007836

The cartoons I have seen do not look racist to me, any more than a comical depiction of Jesus is racist. People are becoming genuinely afraid to publish this sort of thing, so it is necessary to actually publish it, to show your solidarity in more than a limp wristed, tokenistic gesture, and to drive home the point to the nutjobs that these sorts of attacks backfire.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 6:07pm:

The cartoons I have seen do not look racist to me, any more than a comical depiction of Jesus is racist. People are becoming genuinely afraid to publish this sort of thing, so it is necessary to actually publish it, to show your solidarity in more than a limp wristed, tokenistic gesture, and to drive home the point to the nutjobs that these sorts of attacks backfire.

To re-phrase Voltaire: Ridiculiser l'infâme!!

So FD, if I say I condemn the cartoons as racist and bigoted and I would non-violently oppose anyone publishing them or republishing them - but accept their right to publish them and condemn violent reactions to them...

- would that compatible with freedom?

Or do I have to insist that these cartoons be shoved in muslim's faces before it becomes a "proper" gesture of solidarity and support for freedom?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

So FD, if I say I condemn the cartoons as racist and bigoted and I would non-violently oppose anyone publishing them or republishing them - but accept their right to publish them and condemn violent reactions to them... - would that compatible with freedom? Or do I have to insist that these cartoons be shoved in muslim's faces before it becomes a "proper" gesture of solidarity and support for freedom?

Islam must be sent the way of Christianity - a free association of like-minded souls with no ability to dictate anything. 

Religion is not dictatorship. Islam still wants to dictate. It must be stopped from such aspirations.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 6:07pm:

The cartoons I have seen do not look racist to me, any more than a comical depiction of Jesus is racist. People are becoming genuinely afraid to publish this sort of thing, so it is necessary to actually publish it, to show your solidarity in more than a limp wristed, tokenistic gesture, and to drive home the point to the nutjobs that these sorts of attacks backfire.

Tell me, FD, how would you draw a Jew?  Hook nose?  Swarthy complexion?  Have a Star of David on their clothing, just to make sure you knew what you were looking at?   Is such a depiction of a Jew anti-Semitic?

Is drawing Muslims as being stereotypically Arab, with again a hook nose, a turban, with a crescent on their clothing, Islamophobic? 

So, you don't think the SMH should have apologised over it's cartoon portraying an Israeli in such a way?

Is it possible to be too offensive?   I'm genuinely interested if there is anything you find beyond the pale, at all?   How about depictions of paedophilia?  Bestiality?  Sadism?   Anything at all?   ::)

Hope this does it justice.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/charlie-hebdo.jpg

In solidarity with the victims from Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) magazine, and all people whose freedom of expression is under attack by ideologies of violent intolerance. The front cover depicted (above left) is from a 2011 edition, guest edited by Muhammed, aka Charia Hebdo. He promises "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter". After that issue was published, the magazine's office was firebombed and its website was hacked. The attackers posted a notice on the hacked site that read, "You keep abusing Islam's almighty Prophet with disgusting and disgraceful cartoons using excuses of freedom of speech. Be God's curse upon you!" The artist, 'Luz' escaped Wednesday's slaughter because he was late for work. Ten of his colleagues and two police officers were murdered.

Freedom of speech - use it or lose it.

www.ozpolitic.com/charlie-hebdo.jpg
www.charliehebdo.fr

So, you see nothing wrong I take it with cartoonists deliberately utilising racist stereotypes in their cartoons?

So, you were against the SMH apologising for this cartoon, FD?

http://honestreporting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sydney-Morning-Herald.jpg

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

So FD, if I say I condemn the cartoons as racist and bigoted and I would non-violently oppose anyone publishing them or republishing them - but accept their right to publish them and condemn violent reactions to them... - would that compatible with freedom? Or do I have to insist that these cartoons be shoved in muslim's faces before it becomes a "proper" gesture of solidarity and support for freedom?

Actually, how are they racist and bigoted? Why, exactly, shouldn’t they be published? Why would this be opposed?

Now I’m really curious.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 6:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:40am: freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: I am going to dig up some of those cartoons and post them. The 'good' it does is defending freedom of speech. Quote: We can defend Charlie Hebdo without endorsing it By Jeff Sparrow Updated about an hour agoFri 9 Jan 2015, 6:28am We should condemn the Paris killers, but that doesn't mean we must circulate the work of Charlie Hebdo. You can uphold their right to safety without endorsing the racialised stereotypes they published, writes Jeff Sparrow. No one should be killed for drawing a cartoon. Nor for writing an article, or for editing or publishing one. It doesn't matter whether you live in Paris or Sydney, New York or Baghdad - expressing an opinion shouldn't be a death sentence. That's all that needs to be said about free speech and the awful murders in France. Or at least it should be. But in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, it's being argued that, rather than merely condemning the killers, we should, in the name of free speech, republish the magazine's work. And that's something quite different. Last July, the Sydney Morning Herald published a cartoon by Glen Le Lievre about the conflict in Palestine. The image showed an elderly man sitting on an armchair using a remote control device to explode bombs in Gaza. The figure, with an exaggeratedly large nose, was wearing a skullcap; his chair was decorated with the Star of David. Fairfax (correctly, in my view) subsequently apologised for the cartoon: the tropes were, the paper said, uncomfortably close to classical anti-Semitism: The Herald now appreciates that, in using the Star of David and the kippah in the cartoon, the newspaper invoked an inappropriate element of religion, rather than nationhood, and made a serious error of judgment. It was wrong to publish the cartoon in its original form. Had someone subsequently attacked the artist, would that have changed our opinion of the image in question? Would it have been necessary to endorse - or even republish - an anti-Jewish cartoon to defend its creator from harm? To put it another way, you don't have to like the project of Charlie Hedbo to defend its artists from murder, just as you can uphold media workers' right to safety without endorsing the imagery they produce. That might seem entirely obvious. But it needs to be said for, if the SMH cartoon was bigoted, so too was much of what Charlie Hebdo published. Jacob Canfield offers a sample of the magazine's work. Have a look for yourself. It's a gallery of racialised stereotypes: image after image of leering hook-nosed Muslims, with bushy beards and hijabs. As Canfield says: These are, by even the most generous assessment, incredibly racist cartoons. Hebdo's goal is to provoke, and these cartoons make it very clear who the white editorial staff was interested in provoking: France's incredibly marginalized, often attacked, Muslim immigrant community. Once more and again, we can condemn those who kill artists for their art without pretending there's something admirable in xenophobic clichés, particularly given the rising racial tensions across Europe. Earlier this week, 18,000 people marched in Dresden under the banner of PEGIDA - or Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West - demanding a harsh crackdown on immigrants. The group's been dubbed "the pinstripe Nazis", in a country that doesn't use references to National Socialism lightly. Similar groups are on the rise all across the continent, including in France, where the National Front has reached new levels of popularity, despite a lineage traceable back to old-style Jew-baiting fascism. Already, the far Right is making political capital from this crime. The circulation of Islamophobic images, even if intended as a gesture of solidarity with the victims, will help normalise a bigotry that's the bread and butter of the National Front and its ilk. Many of us remember the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when politicians and media pundits stampeded each other into a whole gamut of responses, almost all of which proved to be disastrous. So right now would be a good time to calm down, to refrain from hashtag politics and kneejerk reactions. What's happened is bad enough. Let's not make matters worse. Jeff Sparrow is the editor of Overland literary journal and the author of Killing: Misadventures in Violence. On Twitter, he is @Jeff_Sparrow. View his full profile here. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-09/sparrow-we-should-support-charlie-hebdo-not-endorse-it/6007836 The cartoons I have seen do not look racist to me, any more than a comical depiction of Jesus is racist. People are becoming genuinely afraid to publish this sort of thing, so it is necessary to actually publish it, to show your solidarity in more than a limp wristed, tokenistic gesture, and to drive home the point to the nutjobs that these sorts of attacks backfire.

Me either, but there’s no way I’d publish, reproduce or post krap work merely to make a point about Freeeedom.

We used to sh!t in people’s front yards when we were kids, but we never pretended we were making a point about the freedom to sh!t.

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons fit perfectly in the sh!t and run category.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

So, you see nothing wrong I take it with cartoonists deliberately utilising racist stereotypes in their cartoons? So, you were against the SMH apologising for this cartoon, FD? http://honestreporting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sydney-Morning-Herald.jpg

What’s wrong with this?

Quote:

Actually, how are they racist and bigoted? Why, exactly, shouldn’t they be published? Why would this be opposed? Now I’m really curious.

the reasons are not important - I'm asking if such sentiments would be compatible in FD's   world. Is he really saying the only way to defend free speech against such attacks is to keep publishing the offending material? Is it possible for a member of a free society to freely express their view that a drawing is offensive and it should not be published - but at the same time accept people's right to publish it?

I'm genuinely curious - as FD appears to be saying that you can't oppose both the cartoons and the terrorists at the same time if you support freedom speech.

But what’s actually wrong with the cartoons? That’s what FD, and now my humble self, are curious about.

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb.

I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons,  but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me.

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir.

I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered.

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t.

I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

I can't answer that K because I don't know French - and the only ones I've seen are in French. It would also depend on the context in which they were used. Some may be making a legitimate point about islamic atrocities, but others are simply gratuitous.

Suffice to say though that muslims seem to find them offensive. You don't have to share their offense, or even understand their offense. Thats the beauty of a free society - you are free to be offended or not be offended, and it doesn't have to make sense to other people. You are also free to express the view that they are so offensive they should not be published - just as you are free to say people are full of shlt for being offended and that the only way to protect free speech in the face of violence is to shove even more offending cartoons in muslim's faces.

I happen to believe that all the above sentiments are perfectly consistent with someone who staunchly believes in free speech. My sense though is that FD has some difficulty agreeing with this. He seems to think that employing some circumspection and saying "maybe being arseholes and publishing gratuitous cartoons for the sole purpose of offending isn't such a good idea" is being limp-wristed and giving in to the terrorists. But I would like to clarify that point with him.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

Quote: Actually, how are they racist and bigoted? Why, exactly, shouldn’t they be published? Why would this be opposed? Now I’m really curious. the reasons are not important - I'm asking if such sentiments would be compatible in FD's   world. Is he really saying the only way to defend free speech against such attacks is to keep publishing the offending material? Is it possible for a member of a free society to freely express their view that a drawing is offensive and it should not be published - but at the same time accept people's right to publish it? I'm genuinely curious - as FD appears to be saying that you can't oppose both the cartoons and the terrorists at the same time if you support freedom speech.

'Accept' people's right to publish it? is this as close to actually supporting freedom of speech that a Muslim can get?

You can be as limp wristed in you 'defense' of liberty as you want. Fortunately for you people with a bit more spine were willing to actually stand up for it and hand it to you on a platter.


Quote:

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons fit perfectly in the sh!t and run category.

I like them. You're just jealous because your posts aren't funny any more, and his are. Yours fit better than his.


Quote:

Suffice to say though that muslims seem to find them offensive.

That's all it takes for you to insist they should not be published?

no infidel cares if muslims are offended.

the Koran was invented by a paedophilic mass murderer

islam is a death cult.

leave the cult

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it. The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb. I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons,  but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me. If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement. I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir. I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered. Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t. I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

I stand with PB.

There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for.

Get miffed - really miffed.  But that's the limit. 

You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage.  No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.

 
After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists.  This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

I can't answer that K because I don't know French - and the only ones I've seen are in French. It would also depend on the context in which they were used. Some may be making a legitimate point about islamic atrocities, but others are simply gratuitous. Suffice to say though that muslims seem to find them offensive. You don't have to share their offense, or even understand their offense. Thats the beauty of a free society - you are free to be offended or not be offended, and it doesn't have to make sense to other people. You are also free to express the view that they are so offensive they should not be published - just as you are free to say people are full of shlt for being offended and that the only way to protect free speech in the face of violence is to shove even more offending cartoons in muslim's faces. I happen to believe that all the above sentiments are perfectly consistent with someone who staunchly believes in free speech. My sense though is that FD has some difficulty agreeing with this. He seems to think that employing some circumspection and saying "maybe being arseholes and publishing gratuitous cartoons for the sole purpose of offending isn't such a good idea" is being limp-wristed and giving in to the terrorists. But I would like to clarify that point with him.

Islam is alien to Europe, it has always been an enemy of Europe. Europe has been repelling Islam for about 1500 years.  Islam is not wanted in Europe.  The expectation that it be given equal footing just because it has blown into Europe if preposterous.

Islam is a ridiculous religion and has been regarded as such for centuries by Europe. What is more, Europe has ridiculed its own religion for at least two centuries.

For Islam, a recent and completely unwelcome and uninvited blow-in, now demanding -  DEMANDING - respect is preposterous in the extreme.


http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/europe_kick-out_expulse_islam-muslims-musulmans-coran950x705-e13909822873671.jpg

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

Why on earth not? I think the distinction is extremely important - the ability to say "you have a right to publish it, but I don't think you should publish it" is just as important vis-a-vis freedom of speech IMO. Otherwise aren't you saying that accepting the right of people to publish things means you must therefore support them publishing it? What happened to my freedom to oppose? You then just become every bit as anti-freedom as the other end of the scale don't you?



Quote:

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition, even outrage, towards these images and call on the publisher to desist. And in a trully fair and free society, we should not merely accept muslim's rights to do this, but embrace it as a demonstration of freedom of speech functioning as it should - even if you are at the same time denouncing them as idiots. I happen to believe you can hold all of these views and be the perfect model of a freedom loving citizen. But FD seems to believe that these expressions represent a "chipping away at our freedoms"



Quote:

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t. I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

Caracaturising jews in our modern society is an extremely hard sell. But yes, I take your point that important things can (and possibly should) be said - depending on context. But I will never support publishing blatantly gratuitous material for the sole purpose of offending, and I do believe there is scope for the law to intervene in cases where intimidation and incitement comes into play. FD thinks this is a sinister muslim thing and can't accept the fact that a huge majority of Australians agree with me on this. He remains curiously silent about the fact that the Attorney General of this country can stand up and proudly proclaim that holocaust denial will remain a thought-crime, without so much as a whimper of protest from the (non-muslim) majority. In fact, its obvious that Brandis said this specifically because there is overwhelming community sentiment in favour of this. What FD refuses to acknowledge is that freedom extends to the freedom not to be intimidated and harassed, and therefore freedom of speech ends when it impinges on these rights. Not many Australians seem to disagree that holocaust denial, according to Brandis, is a form of racial discrimination because it is deemed to be incitement against jews - just as most Australians clearly understand that the right to criticise different races and ethnicities ends as soon as that criticism becomes incitement and intimidation. 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tG2eTdKIFTY/VK6AqKVAi0I/AAAAAAACy3Y/D7yhLSChDDA/s1600/theo3.jpg

Quote:

You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage.  No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.

are you talking about your secret society here ?

your ilk is forgiven

namaste

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:49pm:

All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition

muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition.

The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian  menace.

Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM.


Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible.

|dev|null wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:48am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 5:19am: Karnal wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:53pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:16pm: stryder wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:10pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:00pm: Greg is gay. Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me. Would you trust him in a communal shower? Do you use communal showers, Bobbie? Ooooh. About 15 years ago I used a communal shower at a swimming pool facility & I noticed that a bloke was looking at me. I got out of there fast. I've never been back there. It was creepy. You have led a very sheltered life, haven't you Bobby?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Imagine if that happened to you.   :o

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

I can't answer that K because I don't know French - and the only ones I've seen are in French. It would also depend on the context in which they were used. Some may be making a legitimate point about islamic atrocities, but others are simply gratuitous. Suffice to say though that muslims seem to find them offensive. You don't have to share their offense, or even understand their offense. Thats the beauty of a free society - you are free to be offended or not be offended, and it doesn't have to make sense to other people. You are also free to express the view that they are so offensive they should not be published - just as you are free to say people are full of shlt for being offended and that the only way to protect free speech in the face of violence is to shove even more offending cartoons in muslim's faces. I happen to believe that all the above sentiments are perfectly consistent with someone who staunchly believes in free speech. My sense though is that FD has some difficulty agreeing with this. He seems to think that employing some circumspection and saying "maybe being arseholes and publishing gratuitous cartoons for the sole purpose of offending isn't such a good idea" is being limp-wristed and giving in to the terrorists. But I would like to clarify that point with him.

No, G, if you believe something is "offensive", you need to say how and why. By saying something is offensive you’re saying it offends yourself or others. You can’t just say you don’t know why if you’re saying something is offensive.

You know why.

If you don’t know why the Charlie French comics you haven’t read are offensive, why would you take others’ word that it is?

Sure, it may very well offend, but if you’re expecting others to show restraint and self censor, we need to understand why something may very well offend - or not.

After all, how can anyone be expected to shut themselves up if they don’t know how what they’re saying may hurt others?

Please explain.

You misunderstand K - I never said *I* personally find it offensive, I said *IF* I find it offensive.

And yes, if I was exercising my right to oppose the cartoons, I would certainly be expressing my reasons loud and clear.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:57pm: The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it. The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb. I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons,  but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me. If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement. I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir. I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered. Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t. I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you? I stand with PB. There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for. Get miffed - really miffed.  But that's the limit.  You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage.  No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.   After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists.  This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that.

And this comes from the same old boy who believes Israel has a right to kill and sieze land - because this is what people have done for centuries.

The old boy believes in offense for offense’s sake alone, and he’s very limited in who should be offended and who should be denied the right to offend. The old boy believes that no one has the right to not be offended - except the old boy’s tribe.

For the old boy, satire is purely an ideological weapon.

For others, it’s a way of opening up awareness. This, for Freud, was the very purpose of jokes - laughter is an unconscious reaction to surpressed information.

No one has the right to have a decent chuckle. All should be offended.

Except the old boy’s shibboleths.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

You misunderstand K - I never said *I* personally find it offensive, I said *IF* I find it offensive. And yes, if I was exercising my right to oppose the cartoons, I would certainly be expressing my reasons loud and clear.

Fair enough, but I would like to understand how the cartoons actually cause offense.

Does anyone know?

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:49pm: All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition. The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian  menace. Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head. YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM. Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible.

And here’s the old dear expressing his NON VIOLENT opposition to Gandy.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THE OLD BOY. Innit.

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:23pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:57pm: The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it. The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb. I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons,  but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me. If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement. I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir. I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered. Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t. I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you? I stand with PB. There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for. Get miffed - really miffed.  But that's the limit.  You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage.  No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.   After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists.  This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that. And this comes from the same old boy who believes Israel has a right to kill and sieze land - because this is what people have done for centuries. The old boy believes in offense for offense’s sake alone, and he’s very limited in who should be offended and who should be denied the right to offend. The old boy believes that no one has the right to not be offended - except the old boy’s tribe. For the old boy, satire is purely an ideological weapon. For others, it’s a way of opening up awareness. This, for Freud, was the very purpose of jokes - laughter is an unconscious reaction to surpressed information. No one has the right to have a decent chuckle. All should be offended. Except the old boy’s shibboleths.

A load of disjointed BS.  As always.

Make a coherent point PB, or FO. We have enough stupid drones without you muscling in.

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:27pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:02pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:49pm: All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition. The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian  menace. Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head. YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM. Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible. And here’s the old dear expressing his NON VIOLENT opposition to Gandy. YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THE OLD BOY. Innit.

F Vck orf, PB, the time for your inane BS is over. You are a stupid drongo and that's all you are.

You never had a coherent point before and your inanity is now just completely besides all conceivable points.

FO.  You are as relevant as Brain.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:19pm: Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:23pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:57pm: The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it. The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb. I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons,  but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me. If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement. I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir. I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered. Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t. I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you? I stand with PB. There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for. Get miffed - really miffed.  But that's the limit.  You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage.  No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.   After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists.  This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that. And this comes from the same old boy who believes Israel has a right to kill and sieze land - because this is what people have done for centuries. The old boy believes in offense for offense’s sake alone, and he’s very limited in who should be offended and who should be denied the right to offend. The old boy believes that no one has the right to not be offended - except the old boy’s tribe. For the old boy, satire is purely an ideological weapon. For others, it’s a way of opening up awareness. This, for Freud, was the very purpose of jokes - laughter is an unconscious reaction to surpressed information. No one has the right to have a decent chuckle. All should be offended. Except the old boy’s shibboleths. A load of disjointed BS.  As always. Make a coherent point PB, or FO. We have enough stupid drones without you muscling in.

It’s perfectly coherent, old boy. What you’re saying is say what you want to hear or FO.

Sorry if pointing this out causes offense.

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:27pm: Soren wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:02pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:49pm: All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition. The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian  menace. Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head. YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM. Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible. And here’s the old dear expressing his NON VIOLENT opposition to Gandy. YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THE OLD BOY. Innit. F Vck orf, PB, the time for your inane BS is over. You are a stupid drongo and that's all you are. You never had a coherent point before and your inanity is now just completely besides all conceivable points. FO.  You are as relevant as Brain.

Sorry if I caused offense, old boy.

I guess this makes your jolly defense of satire rather redundant, eh?

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:38pm:

It’s perfectly coherent, old boy. What you’re saying is say what you want to hear or FO. Sorry if pointing this out causes offense.

All you do is incoherent rambling, PB.  You could not make a coherent point if your life depended on it. That's how far gone you are.
You ramble about cheese and poo. And that's all second hand cheese and poo. You haven't had a non-second hand idea in all your life.

Nam Nam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:49pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:57pm: The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it. Why on earth not? I think the distinction is extremely important - the ability to say "you have a right to publish it, but I don't think you should publish it" is just as important vis-a-vis freedom of speech IMO. Otherwise aren't you saying that accepting the right of people to publish things means you must therefore support them publishing it? What happened to my freedom to oppose? You then just become every bit as anti-freedom as the other end of the scale don't you? Quote: If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement. All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition, even outrage, towards these images and call on the publisher to desist. And in a trully fair and free society, we should not merely accept muslim's rights to do this, but embrace it as a demonstration of freedom of speech functioning as it should - even if you are at the same time denouncing them as idiots. I happen to believe you can hold all of these views and be the perfect model of a freedom loving citizen. But FD seems to believe that these expressions represent a "chipping away at our freedoms"

Again, G, no one can persuade someone to self-censor without giving them good reasons why they should do so.

The Charlie audience is not Muslims per se, but the Charlie cover does refer to Muslims. It’s fair to expect respect to Muslims, but at first glance, I honestly can’t see how the cartoon we’ve seen here is at all offensive to Muslims.

As far as I know, this has never been explained to the editors (or at least debated in public). Last year, Charlie staff were issued death threats, and told, old boy style, to FO.

And this year, they were slaughtered in broad daylight.

A magazine is a dialogue with its readers, but a magazine like this is a dialogue on a range of debates. Sure, I can imagine situations where certain material should not be published, but there needs to be extremely detailed and compelling reasons why.

Publish the image of Muhammed or get killed is not a good reason, it’s just old boy schtick.

See below to get the general gist.

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

Again, G, no one can persuade someone to self-censor without giving them good reasons why they should do so.

Of course they can't - not unless that someone is extremely stupid or gullible. But thats not the point - the point is people should be free to try and persuade no matter how absurd the proposal, so long as it doesn't impinge on other people's rights. What are you suggesting - that there should be a law against calling for things without good reason?

Basically my concern in all this is that people are misinterpreting "you should not publish that" as "you have no right to publish that - and should be stopped by force". Why else would FD equate marching against cartoons with "chipping away at our freedoms"?


Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

The Charlie audience is not Muslims per se, but the Charlie cover does refer to Muslims. It’s fair to expect respect to Muslims, but at first glance, I honestly can’t see how the cartoon we’ve seen here is at all offensive to Muslims.

They publish cartoons using negative racial stereotypes (muslims are always hook-nosed arabs - usually frothing at the mouth and looking generally sinister) and depicting the prophet in a negative light. I shouldn't have to explain how a shot of the prophet, naked, from behind complete with scrotum looking like a prostitute is offensive to muslims - or do I?

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:07pm:

Charlie staff were issued death threats, and told, old boy style, to FO.

F V ck orf PB. I have never firebombed anything.  So f Vck orf with the old boy style equivalence crap. The time is over for this, Paki arse hole.



A newspaper has been shot up, 12 + people have been killed for simply not taking Islam and Mohammed sufficiently seriously.  No room for your nonsense, PB. There is no barbed wire fence for you to enjoy saddling, old queen.i

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:03am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:07pm: Charlie staff were issued death threats, and told, old boy style, to FO.  F V ck orf PB. I have never firebombed anything.  So f Vck orf with the old bov style equivalence crap. The time is over for this, Paki arse hole.

Using your reasoning, you are just as responsible as those who throw the firebombs at Mosques, Soren.  Why are you denying it?   ::)


Quote:

A newspaper has been shot up, 12 + people have been killed for simply not taking Islam and Mohammed sufficiently seriously.  No room for your nonsense, PB. There is no barbed wire fence for you to enjoy saddling, old queen.

I think the problem was that the magazine (it wasn't a newspaper) failed to take the threat of Islamist extremists seriously enough, not that they didn't take Islam and Mohammed sufficiently seriously.   They obviously thought they were invulnerable and paid the price unfortunately.  Complacency and arrogance was their problem.  Rather like yours is, Soren.    ::)

I haven’t seen the scrotal cartoon, G  but yes - I do think people should explain why this is offensive if they want others to show restraint. This is the only way they will get people on side.

Likewise, I think those who publish such images should show restraint. I have no idea what the cartoon you describe was about or what it was saying.

The same is true of racial caricatures. A hook-nosed Arab is not offensive in itself, just as Elmer Fudd is not offensive to crackers. A hook-nosed Arab is a hook-nosed Arab. If you tried to neuter out any caricaturization of race in visual representation, you’d do away with most art, film, TV and visual media.

Charlie pokes fun at all religions, and it’s incredibly precious to expect it not to.do the same about Islam. There are many Muslims who enjoy jokes about Muhammed, just as there are Christians who love taking the p!ss out of Jesus and the church.

To be honest, I can’t imagine an image of Jesus’ testicles, but on the face of it I don’t think this should be banned. I can, however, see how it would be highly offensive to a range of people, the old boy especially.

Sure, if it’s designed just to cause offense - and I put the ridiculous Piss Christ in this category, I can’t see any merit in it and I have no problem banning it (as counter-productive as this will be). I would not like to be the one tasked with making such a decision, however. If it was up to me, almost everything would get through.

Personally, I find the image of a crucified Jesus rather gruesome, but it’s just something we’ve come to accept. If an image of Jesus and his testicles chasing a prostitute made a reasonable point, I do think it serves a purpose, and I do think Muslims should be able to see the purpose in such a Muhammed image too.

We aren’t Muslims, Christians, hook-nosed Arabs and crackers, we’re people. Those divisions are essentially artificial.

Good art and satire, I think, should reveal this rather than reinforce the divisions. One of the best way to do this is to make fun of those very caricatures and idols.

And I do.think this needs to be done with humility and respect.

Quote:

France terror attack is justified by Islam

Muslim activists must be rounded up -

detention without trial.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:24am:

Quote: France terror attack is justified by Islam Muslim activists must be rounded up - detention without trial.

So much for their civil liberties.  BTW, Bobby, how well did detention without trial work out for the British in Northern Ireland again?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:27am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:24am: Quote: France terror attack is justified by Islam Muslim activists must be rounded up - detention without trial. So much for their civil liberties.  BTW, Bobby, how well did detention without trial work out for the British in Northern Ireland again?   ::)

It worked well.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:28am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:27am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:24am: Quote: France terror attack is justified by Islam Muslim activists must be rounded up - detention without trial. So much for their civil liberties.  BTW, Bobby, how well did detention without trial work out for the British in Northern Ireland again?   ::) It worked well.

Did it?  Most observers believe it intensified and prolonged "the troubles", Bobby.

Do you believe destroying the very principles that our society is founded on will do it any good?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:32am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:28am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:27am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:24am: Quote: France terror attack is justified by Islam Muslim activists must be rounded up - detention without trial. So much for their civil liberties.  BTW, Bobby, how well did detention without trial work out for the British in Northern Ireland again?   ::) It worked well. Did it?  Most observers belief it intensified and prolonged "the troubles", Bobby. Do you believe destroying the very principles that our society is founded on will do it any good?    ::)

Desperate times require extraordinary measures.

This is only the start - it will get worse.

We need to hang anyone involved in terrorism.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:34am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:32am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:28am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:27am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:24am: Quote: France terror attack is justified by Islam Muslim activists must be rounded up - detention without trial. So much for their civil liberties.  BTW, Bobby, how well did detention without trial work out for the British in Northern Ireland again?   ::) It worked well. Did it?  Most observers belief it intensified and prolonged "the troubles", Bobby. Do you believe destroying the very principles that our society is founded on will do it any good?    ::) Desperate times require extraordinary measures.

Isn't that what all tyrants claim to justify their tyranny, Bobby?


Quote:

This is only the start - it will get worse. We need to hang anyone involved in terrorism.

Couldn't agree more.  You of course will sort the innocent from the guilty though and give them a free and fair trial, Bobby?   Or will those principles disappear in your tyrannical terror?   Monsieur Citizen Robespierre by chance?  You do know what happened to him in the end of his Terror?  He got fed into it's bloody maw, just like all the other victims.   ::)

Dang, boys, only free and fair trial a man gets in Karnal.City is when the judge wakes up at the end and says, hang ’em by their necks until they’s dead.

Karnal wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:55am:

Dang, boys, only free and fair trial a man gets in Karnal.City is when the judge wakes up at the end and says, hang ’em by their necks until they’s dead.

No - they would get a fair trial - a fair appeal - & then get hanged.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:34am:

Desperate times require extraordinary measures. This is only the start - it will get worse. We need to hang anyone involved in terrorism.

Why not shoot or euthanize them ?


Do they need to be guilty first ?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 6:31am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:55am: Dang, boys, only free and fair trial a man gets in Karnal.City is when the judge wakes up at the end and says, hang ’em by their necks until they’s dead. No - they would get a fair trial - a fair appeal - & then get hanged.

The answer appeared when I posted the next response.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 6:52am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 6:31am: Karnal wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:55am: Dang, boys, only free and fair trial a man gets in Karnal.City is when the judge wakes up at the end and says, hang ’em by their necks until they’s dead. No - they would get a fair trial - a fair appeal - & then get hanged. The answer appeared when I posted the next response.

forgiven

namaste

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 6:51am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:34am: Desperate times require extraordinary measures. This is only the start - it will get worse. We need to hang anyone involved in terrorism. Why not shoot or euthanize them ? Do they need to be guilty first ?

euthanize them ?

Maybe - just like a dog with rabies.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:32am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:28am: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:27am: Bobby. wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 12:24am: Quote: France terror attack is justified by Islam Muslim activists must be rounded up - detention without trial. So much for their civil liberties.  BTW, Bobby, how well did detention without trial work out for the British in Northern Ireland again?   ::) It worked well. Did it?  Most observers belief it intensified and prolonged "the troubles", Bobby. Do you believe destroying the very principles that our society is founded on will do it any good?    ::)

maybe you would be better to ask the people who built the wall that divides Belfast...

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 12:07am:

I think the problem was that the magazine (it wasn't a newspaper) failed to take the threat of Islamist extremists seriously enough, not that they didn't take Islam and Mohammed sufficiently seriously.   They obviously thought they were invulnerable and paid the price unfortunately.  Complacency and arrogance was their problem.  Rather like yours is, Soren.    ::)

SO answer is for the French to bow to the will of Muslim fanatics in Paris?

You are despicable and spineless.


Martin Amis said almost 10 years ago : "What can we do to raise the price of them doing this? There's a definite urge - don't you have it? - to say the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan ... Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children..."


And that's just what Spengler said today on PJ media.

France now faces an existential dilemma. By most independent estimates France now has a Muslim population of 6 million, or almost 10% of its 65 million people. If we assume that just 1% of this population are radicalized to the point of engaging in or providing support for terrorist activities, that is a pool of 60,000 individuals. We are not speaking of 60,000 potential bombers or shooters, but a support network that will allow a much smaller number of terrorists to blend into the broader population. In the “no-go” zones of France now effectively ruled by Muslim gangs, moreover, the terrorists can intimidate the Muslim population. France already has lost the capacity to police part of its territory, which means that it cannot conduct effective counter-terror operations.

To put that number in context, the whole prison population of France is less than 70,000, of whom 60% are Muslims. It only takes a few dozen trained terrorists with an effective support network to bring ordinary life to a stop in a major city. France has had the toughest enforcement policy against radical Islam among the major European nations, as Daniel Pipes observes. But French security clearly has been overwhelmed. The use of assault rifles and (reportedly) a rocket launcher by highly-skilled gunmen in the center of Paris is a statement of contempt towards the authorities on the part of the terrorists.

The means by which France could defeat the terrorists are obvious: To compel the majority of French Muslims to turn against the terrorists, the French authorities would have to make them fear the French state more than they fear the terrorists. That is a nasty business involving large numbers of deportations, revocation of French citizenship, and other threats that inevitably would affect many individuals with no direct connection to terrorism. In the short term it would lead to more radicalization. The whole project of integration as an antidote to radicalism would go down the drain. The effort would be costly, but ultimately it would succeed: most French Muslims simply want to stay in France and earn a living.

There is no good outcome here, but the worst outcome would be the degeneration of France into a hostage state.


The same goes for the rest of the West.

The degeneration of France into a hostage state is a tad hyperbolic, old boy.

I’d be curious to know how many French Muslims are with Charlie on this.

I actually agree that the cartoons should be published everywhere, not in solidarity, but to debate the issue.

I think Muslims should be critical of the shibboleths in their religion, just as Christians should be. I think Muslims should embrace satire and use it to discuss the issues.

Banning it - unless it vilifies,or promotes violence - is not an option in our culture. We do believe in liberty, equality and fraternity. Everyone who lives with us values this in one way or another.