Annie opened a can of worms that has Aussie and Mothra tapdancing for her:


freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 3:50pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 3:16pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 9:48am: Annie Anthrax wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:16am: freediver wrote on May 18th, 2019 at 9:45pm: I am not asking you whether you would bother. I am asking you whether you have lost your freedom. Do I need to explain why that is relevant? I have not lost my freedom. I understand what you're saying. Islam is an oppressive, mysoginistic religion in the way it is practiced by the majority of Muslims, particularly in countries governed by Shariah law. But it still has zero impact on my freedom. Your preemptively fighting against an imagined threat. You have a good understanding of science and the impacts of climate change, which will have an undeniably bigger impact on our way of living. The years that you've put into demonising muslims would've been better spent there. No, you do not understand what I am saying and you are evading the question. Are you free to star in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad? Yes of course I am. As an Australian, I'm free to do what I like within the boundary of Australian laws. Would you have any reason to fear assassination if you did?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 9:45pm:

Aussie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 8:18pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 6:28pm: Aussie wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 6:18pm: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2019 at 6:06pm: Mothra or Aussie, would either of you like to have a go at answering the question? No.  I have dealt with this before in one other of your Muslim bash Threads. I only recall you evading. And now you seem to think Annie needs you to evade on her behalf. Would you have any reason to fear assassination if you starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad? I have answered that directly before.  Just goes to show that you don't read the answers you don't like.  At least I answer questions put to me by anyone.  You don't. So answer it Aussie. Would you have any reason to fear assassination if you starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad? And what makes you think Annie needs you to evade on her behalf?

Why didn't you quote mothra FD? You mentioned mothra tapdancing, but didn't think to quote her? I would have been far more interested in that quote rather than you and Aussie inanely bickering "I explained it", "no you didn't!"

Come to think of it, the first quote doesn't say anything useful either - just a statement of the bleeding obvious.

FD, why is it that whenever you don't get the answer you want you go and start another thread whinging about how you didn't get the answer you wanted?

You can follow the links yourself to see what Mothra posted. It was similar to Aussie, except she realised a bit earlier she was on to a loser.

I missed the bit where I got an answer I don't like. What was their answer to this question: Would you have any reason to fear assassination if you starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad?

So in that 'How will you vote' thread, where the quotes come from, Mothra doesn't say anything in relation to what Annie said about Islam. So what exactly do you mean by 'tapdancing'?

FD did you really vote Fraser Anning's party number 2 on your senate ticket?

Yes, FD, I'm curious too. Did you really vote for Fraser Anning so that he can ban G and Abu?

Karnal wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 4:41pm:

Yes, FD, I'm curious too. Did you really vote for Fraser Anning so that he can ban G and Abu?

no on K, FD opposes Anning's proposed attacks on freedom, he just feels compelled to support his freedom to speak out against freedom... cause you know... freedom

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 2:05pm:

So in that 'How will you vote' thread, where the quotes come from, Mothra doesn't say anything in relation to what Annie said about Islam. So what exactly do you mean by 'tapdancing'? FD did you really vote Fraser Anning's party number 2 on your senate ticket?

Mothra responded directly to Aussie, as well as to my discussion with Annie. What is your pint, BTW?

Fraser was a bit further down my list in the end. I think in 2016 my vote ended up with him (via Rob Culleton).

Do you think people would have any reason to fear assassination if they starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad? Why do you think people are afraid to answer this one?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 5:54pm:

Karnal wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 4:41pm: Yes, FD, I'm curious too. Did you really vote for Fraser Anning so that he can ban G and Abu? no on K, FD opposes Anning's proposed attacks on freedom, he just feels compelled to support his freedom to speak out against freedom... cause you know... freedom

Now now, G, we'll let FD exercise his freedom to answer that. He has more freedom than you Muselmen, you know.

FD, did you vote for Fraser Anning to ban the Muselman?

Try to be brave, FD. Mother will wait.

Here's your chance to provide an answer.

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 7:24pm:

Mothra responded directly to Aussie, as well as to my discussion with Annie. What is your pint, BTW?

Mothra mocked you for splitting all the off-topic posts except the ones about Islam. She said nothing whatsoever about what Annie said.

My point is, you are just creating yet another useless thread for the sole purpose of being petty and spiteful. And you misrepresent the people you are attacking in the process. The usual story.


freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 7:24pm:

Do you think people would have any reason to fear assassination if they starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad?

Not in Australia.

Mothra's first post in that thread appears to be about my discussion with Annie. Though it is hard to say for sure with the tapdancing.

You are lying when you claim I split all off-topic posts except ones about Islam.

You are also lying when you claim Mothra said nothing at all about what Annie said. This even fails the logic test. You also claim she made a reference to the discussion about Islam, but the discussion about Islam was the discussion I was having with Annie.

Who am I misrepresenting?

Karnal wrote on May 22^nd, 2019 at 9:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 5:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 4:41pm: Yes, FD, I'm curious too. Did you really vote for Fraser Anning so that he can ban G and Abu? no on K, FD opposes Anning's proposed attacks on freedom, he just feels compelled to support his freedom to speak out against freedom... cause you know... freedom Now now, G, we'll let FD exercise his freedom to answer that. He has more freedom than you Muselmen, you know. FD, did you vote for Fraser Anning to ban the Muselman? Try to be brave, FD. Mother will wait. Here's your chance to provide an answer.

FD? You missed this one.

freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 5:32am:

Mothra's first post in that thread appears to be about my discussion with Annie. Though it is hard to say for sure with the tapdancing.

Mothra's first post was to say hi to Annie and note she is a sight for sore eyes. But hey, whatever floats your boat.



freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 5:32am:

You are lying when you claim I split all off-topic posts except ones about Islam.

whoa settle down FD. Not everything's about me lying.

I didn't claim it, I simply stated what mothra said. Don't shoot the messenger.


freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 5:32am:

Who am I misrepresenting?

Mothra, clearly, and now me .  :)

How did I misrepresent Mothra?

Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

Karnal wrote on May 24^th, 2019 at 8:43am:

Karnal wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:25pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 5:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 4:41pm: Yes, FD, I'm curious too. Did you really vote for Fraser Anning so that he can ban G and Abu? no on K, FD opposes Anning's proposed attacks on freedom, he just feels compelled to support his freedom to speak out against freedom... cause you know... freedom Now now, G, we'll let FD exercise his freedom to answer that. He has more freedom than you Muselmen, you know. FD, did you vote for Fraser Anning to ban the Muselman? Try to be brave, FD. Mother will wait. Here's your chance to provide an answer. FD? You missed this one.

FD? You still haven't said.

Not trying to evade, are you?

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2019 at 8:31am:

How did I misrepresent Mothra?

You just did it FD - when you said mothra's first post in that thread "appears to be about my discussion with Annie". Her first post was literally


Quote:

Oh Annie, are you ever a sight for sore eyes, So good to see you.

Before that you said she was tapdancing, which you haven't even explained what it means - and you need to explain it considering the 4 posts she made in that thread were not related in the least to what Annie said about freedom.

It seems the worst thing either of them did was to ignore your question about fearing assassination for making a Muhammad movie.


freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2019 at 8:31am:

Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

Why don't you give it a go FD, and report back the results.

Did you ever get any 'results' from posting the Charlie Hebdo cartoons? I remember you hinting at the time you thought you were putting yourself in mortal danger, but nevertheless felt duty bound to do it...

FD recalled a "visceral thrill" from posting that picture of Moh, G. It was the first time since 2007 that FD felt really alive - much more exciting than evading questions, anyway.

Quote:

You just did it FD - when you said mothra's first post in that thread "appears to be about my discussion with Annie". Her first post was literally

OK so I didn't check back far enough to her first post. But you accused me of misrepresenting her before that Gandalf. How did I misrepresent her?


Quote:

Why don't you give it a go FD, and report back the results.

It's more interesting to try to get a straight answer from a Muslim. Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:

It's more interesting to try to get a straight answer from a Muslim.

More interesting than expressing your Freeeeedom?


Karnal wrote on May 25^th, 2019 at 9:24am:

Karnal wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 8:43am: Karnal wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 9:25pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 5:54pm: Karnal wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 4:41pm: Yes, FD, I'm curious too. Did you really vote for Fraser Anning so that he can ban G and Abu? no on K, FD opposes Anning's proposed attacks on freedom, he just feels compelled to support his freedom to speak out against freedom... cause you know... freedom Now now, G, we'll let FD exercise his freedom to answer that. He has more freedom than you Muselmen, you know. FD, did you vote for Fraser Anning to ban the Muselman? Try to be brave, FD. Mother will wait. Here's your chance to provide an answer. FD? You missed this one. FD? You still haven't said. Not trying to evade, are you?

Did you vote for Fraser Anning, FD? You still haven't said.

Karnal. Do you have white sugar or brown sugar in your tea?
I much prefer brown sugar, but my tea is somewhat green.
Maybe a splash of milk might make things look creamier?

Jasin wrote on May 28^th, 2019 at 8:41pm:

Karnal. Do you have white sugar or brown sugar in your tea? I much prefer brown sugar, but my tea is somewhat green. Maybe a splash of milk might make things look creamier?

We'll ask FD.

FD?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2019 at 5:35pm:

OK so I didn't check back far enough to her first post. But you accused me of misrepresenting her before that Gandalf. How did I misrepresent her?

I just told you FD.

Shall I go through every one of the 4 posts she made in that thread to demonstrate to you that she never said anything about what Annie said about freedom? You finally figured out her first post isn't what you claimed, next step is to comprehend that none of the other 3 posts she made are what you claim either.

No posts about your "discussion with Annie" as you claimed, and no posts 'tapdancing' for anything Annie said about freedom. There's another way to describe that - its called "misrepresenting her".

I am not asking you to go through her posts Gandalf. I am asking you how I misrepresented her.

Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 8:37am:

I am not asking you to go through her posts Gandalf. I am asking you how I misrepresented her.

I count 3 misrepresentations:

first 2:

Quote:

Mothra's first post in that thread appears to be about my discussion with Annie. Though it is hard to say for sure with the tapdancing.

and 3:

Quote:

You are also lying when you claim Mothra said nothing at all about what Annie said.

I can see you need it spelled out to you, but luckilly its pretty straight forward. Mothra made 4 posts. The first two was greeting Annie and expressing her joy that she returned. So it was misrepresentation to say her first post was about something other than that - but I think you conceded that was wrong, so I won't count that (or at least specifically that it was in her first post). The 3rd post was an image of a dog with a bone, and no text. Clearly in reference to your obsession with Islam. The fourth post was replying to Aussie who criticised you for bashing Islam. She replied by mocking you for splitting all the off-topic posts except the ones about Islam.

So yes, clearly no reference whatsoever to anything Annie said about freedom, and obviously no 'tapdancing' for her argument - which I assume implies some sort of apologising for her argument, which she didn't even reference.

so in summary:
- claiming that mothra mentioned/referenced, or even 'tapdanced' for Annie's argument about freedom in any way, is clearly a misrepresentation. And that is the most generous way of putting it. Others less charitable would simply say that you lied.

Quote:

The 3rd post was an image of a dog with a bone, and no text. Clearly in reference to your obsession with Islam.

In response to my discussion with Annie. About Islam.

Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

Quote:

In response to my discussion with Annie. About Islam.

straw clutching much?  ;D

It was in reference to your obsession about Islam FD, as she made clear in the following post. Nothing to do with what Annie said about freedom.

Is it true that your real beef with mothra in this case that she chose to not partake in your attempted wedging of Annie?

You mean her tapdancing? She partook Gandalf. She just ran away.

Speaking of tapdancing Gandalf, do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 10:11am:

She partook Gandalf.

By mocking your obsession with Islam, or by saying hi to Annie?


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 10:11am:

do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

'special' compared to Afghanistan? sure.

Amazing, its like people like Robert Spencer and Sam Harris don't exist, nor all the publications they make mocking Islam.

Is this going to be yet another hair splitting exercise, where the criteria must be actors starring in a film - and nothing else from the volumes and volumes of other videos, articles, artwork etc mocking Muhammad and Islam count?

I'm guessing it is.

Quote:

'special' compared to Afghanistan, sure

What about Europe?


Quote:

Is this going to be yet another hair splitting exercise, where the criteria must be actors starring in a film - and nothing else from the volumes and volumes of other videos, articles, artwork etc mocking Muhammad and Islam don't count?

Like Charlie Hebdo?

you always bring up Charlie Hebdo FD.

The truth is it, and the few other violent reactions to free speech are the exception. You only need the exceptions I hear you say - and everyone else will self censor. The point is they don't. Free speech mocking Islam is literally everywhere. Perhaps you haven't noticed. Sorry FD, we simply don't live in this self-censoring dystopia that you fantasise about where Islamists have all artists and essayists under their thumb.

People in the west are far more likely to self censor over Islam from fear of the shaming and harassment of the (non-muslim) PC police than any threats to physical violence from actual muslims.

Quote:

The truth is it, and the few other violent reactions to free speech are the exception.

Correct. The norm is that people generally refrain from making movies about Muhammad because of the tendency of Muslims to react violently.


Quote:

You only need the exceptions I hear you say - and everyone else will self censor. The point is they don't.

That's generally how it works Gandalf. When was the last time they made a hollywood blockbuster that made fun of Muhammad?

Hence your efforts to shift the goalposts.


Quote:

Sorry FD, we simply don't live in this self-censoring dystopia that you fantasise about where Islamists have all artists and essayists under their thumb.

Have you tried responding to what I actually say rather than your fantasies about my fantasies?


Quote:

People in the west are far more likely to self censor over Islam from fear of the shaming and harassment of the (non-muslim) PC police than any threats to physical violence from actual muslims.

What sort of harassment?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 1:41pm:

The norm is that people generally refrain from making movies about Muhammad

There are plenty of movies about Muhammad.

What you mean is they refrain from making mocking movies of Muhammad. And the reason for that is most likely that it is offensive and most people don't want to be offensive. And there would obviously be substantially less people in the movie-making industry who have the resources, and the wherewithal to do it - even amateurishly.  And obviously for these reasons a hollywood blockbuster would be the least likely. And thats to do with common decency, not being cowered by Islamists.

Even those who weren't worried about being dicks and wanted to be offensive would have to weigh up the social and commercial backlash caused by progressives doing their outrage thing. If they were in the movie industry already, they soon wouldn't be. And again, that has nothing to do with the Islamists. Its also not exclusive to Islam. Try making a blockbuster mocking something sacred to the jews, and see how far that goes.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 1:41pm:

Have you tried responding to what I actually say rather than your fantasies about my fantasies?

You want to portray our society as one cowering in fear from Islamists who have a complete stranglehold on any free expression that criticises anything Islamic.

I say BS.

Quote:

What you mean is they refrain from making mocking movies of Muhammad. And the reason for that is most likely that it is offensive and most people don't want to be offensive.

And the rest refrain in order to keep their heads.


Quote:

Even those who weren't worried about being dicks and wanted to be offensive would have to weigh up the social and commercial backlash caused by progressives doing their outrage thing.

You mean the free advertising?


Quote:

You want to portray our society as one cowering in fear from Islamists who have a complete stranglehold on any free expression that criticises anything Islamic. I say BS.

I say another strawman. You obviously find it much harder to address what I actually say, so you invent something else to respond to.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 6:39pm:

And the rest refrain in order to keep their heads.

Baseless.

And why is your sole criteria for things not happening on the mock Muhammad front a blockbuster Hollywood movie? Do you agree that Hollywood wouldn't touch a movie that offends jews in any way with a 10 foot pole?

I think blockbuster movies is about the worst example you could come up with. Hollywood have to be PC for whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with fearing they will literally lose their heads.

Why doesn't just about any other medium for mocking Islam and Muhammad you could think of - youtube, images, cartoons - count? Oh thats right, because that stuff happens all the time. And no, one Charlie Hebdo shooting has not stopped it.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 6:39pm:

I say another strawman. You obviously find it much harder to address what I actually say

What you actually say is that Islam is the greatest threat to freedom. You cite Islamist attacks on free speech like Charlie Hebdo and your imagined Islamist-fearing self-censoring as proof. You then "actually say" that no one could ever make a Hollywood film mocking Muhammad - again because of people cowering in fear from the Islamists. You are so obsessed with this imagined Islamist intimidation, that you don't even consider the obvious reason such critical expression is avoided - which is the same reason criticism of things like jews, the holocaust, and pretty much every dark skinned culture is avoided like the plague. And its nothing to do with fearing for one's life or limb.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 11:32am:

Quote: 'special' compared to Afghanistan, sure What about Europe? [quote]Is this going to be yet another hair splitting exercise, where the criteria must be actors starring in a film - and nothing else from the volumes and volumes of other videos, articles, artwork etc mocking Muhammad and Islam don't count?

Like Charlie Hebdo?[/quote]

That's haram, FD. If you ever posted anything from that, Abu would cut off your head.

You'd also have to watch out for Muslims like G.

Mindless collective, innit.

I'll take this one, FD.


Quote:

And the reason for that is most likely that it is offensive and most people don't want to be offensive.

You people like to take offence Gandalf. What is it about Muslims and being offended?


Quote:

Even those who weren't worried about being dicks and wanted to be offensive would have to weigh up the social and commercial backlash caused by progressives doing their outrage thing. If they were in the movie industry already, they soon wouldn't be.

And you think threatening them will work?


Quote:

Try making a blockbuster mocking something sacred to the jews, and see how far that goes.

Why is it that for Muslims it always comes back to the Jews?


Quote:

You want to portray our society as one cowering in fear from Islamists who have a complete stranglehold on any free expression that criticises anything Islamic.

Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

I don't think this thread worked out to well for FD.

;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 7:46pm:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 6:39pm: And the rest refrain in order to keep their heads. Baseless. And why is your sole criteria for things not happening on the mock Muhammad front a blockbuster Hollywood movie? Do you agree that Hollywood wouldn't touch a movie that offends jews in any way with a 10 foot pole? I think blockbuster movies is about the worst example you could come up with. Hollywood have to be PC for whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with fearing they will literally lose their heads. Why doesn't just about any other medium for mocking Islam and Muhammad you could think of - youtube, images, cartoons - count? Oh thats right, because that stuff happens all the time. And no, one Charlie Hebdo shooting has not stopped it. freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 6:39pm: I say another strawman. You obviously find it much harder to address what I actually say What you actually say is that Islam is the greatest threat to freedom. You cite Islamist attacks on free speech like Charlie Hebdo and your imagined Islamist-fearing self-censoring as proof. You then "actually say" that no one could ever make a Hollywood film mocking Muhammad - again because of people cowering in fear from the Islamists. You are so obsessed with this imagined Islamist intimidation, that you don't even consider the obvious reason such critical expression is avoided - which is the same reason criticism of things like jews, the holocaust, and pretty much every dark skinned culture is avoided like the plague. And its nothing to do with fearing for one's life or limb.

You are once again lying about what I actually say Gandalf.

And there are plenty of movies mocking Jews and Black people. But none mocking Muhammad. That's because Jews and black people don't go into violent uncontrollable rages around the world and murder people in response. Muslims do.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:11am: do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad? 'special' compared to Afghanistan? sure.

What about Europe?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 8:37am:

I am not asking you to go through her posts Gandalf. I am asking you how I misrepresented her. Do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad?

Prophets commit WAR
Messiahs commit SUICIDE

...watch (religious side of) France self-destruct like a cathedral burning in the face of Islam, seeking its 'Messiah' to pay the price for their sins.  ;)

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 9:08pm:

And there are plenty of movies mocking Jews and Black people. But none mocking Muhammad.

Sure there are FD - I believe Hitler made a few. What say we engage Hollywood to do a remake of 'The Eternal Jew' - I'm sure the distributors will be falling over themselves to be part of that - right?

Could you name me just one Hollywood film from say the last 30 years that is about actual ridiculing of jews?

Or did you actually just mean films like Independence Day with the dear old jewish dad who said cute 'jewish' things to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy in an otherwise crappy situation?

Also, unlike 'jew-mocking' movies, there really are plenty of movies mocking muslims (and I mean actual mocking). eg Four Lions.


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 9:08pm:

What about Europe?

What about it?

Do you think that because your favourite massacre happened there, that means the place is radically different to the rest of the west in terms of people willing to mock Islam?

Sorry to dissapoint you, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

That Mel Gibson movie about Jesus paints Jews in a bad light.

Here is a list of the 10 funniest movies about Jews, according to IMDB.

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls005517906/

Pretty much any movie or series set in New York is either a gangster movie or poking fun at Jews.

Do you have a TV Gandalf?


Quote:

What about it?

You should be able to figure out what I am asking from the context. Here it is again Gandalf:


freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 9:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:27am: freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:11am: do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad? 'special' compared to Afghanistan? sure. What about Europe?

LOL FD - you actually present a list of "jewish related comedies" as examples of "movies ridiculing jews". What a joke. I have seen keeping the faith, and it is simply farcical to claim the jewish character is being ridiculed.

I think its safe to say they are not exactly "The eternal jew" now are they? How do you reckon a remake of that would go down in Hollywood? That would be an actual example of a movie "ridiculing jews"

And such a shame we couldn't possibly come up with a list of movies that poke fun of muslims could we? I mean they just *NEVER* happen right?


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 8:55am:

Pretty much any movie or series set in New York is either a gangster movie or poking fun at Jews.

Ah yes, thats totally equivalent to a movie that specifically ridicules Islam's most central and revered prophet right?

I don't know exactly what religious icon/symbol/prophet jews most revere, but whatever it is, try using the ridiculing of that as a comparison - rather than simply "poking fun at jews" in some feel good comedy with all round nice guy Ben Stiller.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 8:55am:

You should be able to figure out what I am asking from the context. Here it is again Gandalf:

You could have at least read beyond the first sentence and responded to that.

Quote:

And such a shame we couldn't possibly come up with a list of movies that poke fun of muslims could we? I mean they just *NEVER* happen right?

Can you come up with any that make fun of Muhammad?


Quote:

You could have at least read beyond the first sentence and responded to that.

I didn't see the point in poring over the detail of your evasion. Better to give you another opportunity at a straight answer. So far you have explained the situation in Australia and Afghanistan....


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2019 at 11:27am:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:11am: do you think Australia is special in that we could get away with making a movie that mocks Muhammad? 'special' compared to Afghanistan? sure.

What about Europe?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 1:09pm:

Can you come up with any that make fun of Muhammad?

No, but neither could you find any equivalent for judaism either - at least not one in the last 40 years. You compare apples with oranges - thinking that an equivalent movie mocking Muhammad is something like Keeping the Faith or some equally ridiculous comparison.

The point is, Hollywood steers clear of just about anything overtly critical of non-white, non-christian culture or religion. And the reasons have little to do with fearing for life or limb.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 1:09pm:

I didn't see the point in poring over the detail of your evasion.

Yes FD, mere 'details' that I said that I don't believe Europe is any more affected by self-censorship vis Islam mocking than the rest of the west. No need to bother with the direct answer to your question eh FD?

Quote:

No, but neither could you find any equivalent for judaism either

Probably because that is not what you asked for. This is going to get tiresome if you keep shifting the goalposts. Does Judaism even have an equivalent of Muhammad?


Quote:

The point is, Hollywood steers clear of just about anything overtly critical of non-white, non-christian culture or religion.

Crap.


Quote:

Yes FD, mere 'details' that I said that I don't believe Europe is any more affected by self-censorship vis Islam mocking than the rest of the west.

And you have also evaded on whether you think the rest of the west is affected by self censorship.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 11:21am:

LOL FD - you actually present a list of "jewish related comedies" as examples of "movies ridiculing jews". What a joke. I have seen keeping the faith, and it is simply farcical to claim the jewish character is being ridiculed. I think its safe to say they are not exactly "The eternal jew" now are they? How do you reckon a remake of that would go down in Hollywood? That would be an actual example of a movie "ridiculing jews" And such a shame we couldn't possibly come up with a list of movies that poke fun of muslims could we? I mean they just *NEVER* happen right? freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 8:55am: Pretty much any movie or series set in New York is either a gangster movie or poking fun at Jews. Ah yes, thats totally equivalent to a movie that specifically ridicules Islam's most central and revered prophet right? I don't know exactly what religious icon/symbol/prophet jews most revere, but whatever it is, try using the ridiculing of that as a comparison - rather than simply "poking fun at jews" in some feel good comedy with all round nice guy Ben Stiller. freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 8:55am: You should be able to figure out what I am asking from the context. Here it is again Gandalf: You could have at least read beyond the first sentence and responded to that.

The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini


Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism.


There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel.


The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold.

If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it.

Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty. 

https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf

Islam managers the lives of its adherents in minute detail.

No jokes in Islam.



Unlike with the jews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpGrcK62ObQ

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 4:47pm:

Does Judaism even have an equivalent of Muhammad?

I would suspect that would be Moses, right? He is considered the greatest of Prophets in Judaism.

Have there been any movies in Hollywood that have ridiculed and vilified Moses?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 4:47pm:

Probably because that is not what you asked for. This is going to get tiresome if you keep shifting the goalposts.

I asked for a single Hollywood film that was specifically about ridiculing jews. You came up with nothing, as feel good PC comedies that endear the viewer to the loveable jew don't count. Actual offensive films like The Eternal Jew - how do you reckon a remake of that classic would go? You haven't said.

The point surely is for you to demonstrate that offending jews is acceptable in Hollywood, whereas offending muslims is off-limits - no? For if it turns out that artists are just as afraid of jew-offending (or offending any other non-white minority), then simply blaming it all on the intimidatory effect of Islam is no longer adequate. I'm not exactly sure what would offend jews most, but rest assured it won't involve a Ben Stiller or Jeff Goldblum film. We've all seen the most notorious memes, usually associated with nazis or neo-nazis. That sort of thing. Those you will never see depicted in any Hollywood film, unless its to expose and condemn them. The fact is, artistic expression that sets out to ridicule just about any minority non-white culture or religion will be branded wacist by the mainstream media, and will be extremely bad for the artist's career.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 4:47pm:

And you have also evaded on whether you think the rest of the west is affected by self censorship.

Of course it is - as I've been saying all along if you bothered to listen. Just not because of big bad Islamists. As I keep saying, almost no artist will touch anything trully offensive to jews with a 10 foot barge pole.

Quote:

I asked for a single Hollywood film that was specifically about ridiculing jews. You came up with nothing

I gave you a top ten. Then you decided you really wanted movies making fun of Judaism.


Quote:

Of course it is - as I've been saying all along if you bothered to listen. Just not because of big bad Islamists. As I keep saying, almost no artist will touch anything trully offensive to jews with a 10 foot barge pole.

So there is no 'western' country where you think people would have reason to fear for their life if they starred in a movie mocking Muhammad?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 4:47pm: Probably because that is not what you asked for. This is going to get tiresome if you keep shifting the goalposts. I asked for a single Hollywood film that was specifically about ridiculing jews. You came up with nothing, as feel good PC comedies that endear the viewer to the loveable jew don't count. Actual offensive films like The Eternal Jew - how do you reckon a remake of that classic would go? You haven't said. The point surely is for you to demonstrate that offending jews is acceptable in Hollywood, whereas offending muslims is off-limits - no? For if it turns out that artists are just as afraid of jew-offending (or offending any other non-white minority), then simply blaming it all on the intimidatory effect of Islam is no longer adequate. I'm not exactly sure what would offend jews most, but rest assured it won't involve a Ben Stiller or Jeff Goldblum film. We've all seen the most notorious memes, usually associated with nazis or neo-nazis. That sort of thing. Those you will never see depicted in any Hollywood film, unless its to expose and condemn them. The fact is, artistic expression that sets out to ridicule just about any minority non-white culture or religion will be branded wacist by the mainstream media, and will be extremely bad for the artist's career. freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 4:47pm: And you have also evaded on whether you think the rest of the west is affected by self censorship. Of course it is - as I've been saying all along if you bothered to listen. Just not because of big bad Islamists. As I keep saying, almost no artist will touch anything trully offensive to jews with a 10 foot barge pole.

You do realise FD's not supporting Jews, right? His "sustainability" policy is about eradicating them too.

In FD-land, they're considered tinted.

Quote:

I gave you a top ten. Then you decided you really wanted movies making fun of Judaism.

Not true FD. I even gave you an example 'The Eternal Jew' - which is 100% about ridiculing jews (not judaism). How do you reckon a Hollywood remake of that would go down? You haven't said. Your top 10 are not in the remotest way ridiculing jews, its a joke. How many of them portray the jew as the villain - for being 'jewish', or in any way show jews/jewish culture in a bad light? - precisely zero, thats how many. They are feel good comedies endearing the audience to the affable, if quirky jew. They are literally the opposite of ridiculing.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

So there is no 'western' country where you think people would have reason to fear for their life if they starred in a movie mocking Muhammad?

People fear all sorts of things FD, most of it irrational. Like the fear I have every time I get on plane.

If you are asking me if it is reasonable or rational for them to fear making a movie, the answer is no. IMO.

On the other hand it would be perfectly rational for them to fear having their career in the movie making industry destroyed. But as I say that wouldn't be at the hands of the Islamists.

Quote:

If you are asking me if it is reasonable or rational for them to fear making a movie, the answer is no. IMO.

Would you give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie?

Wow thats dumb even for you FD. The whole community? Or did you just mean individuals from that community?

If I made a film mocking spear fishing, would you give me your personal reassurance that no individuals from the spear fishing community in the west would respond with violence?

Do you think a remake of "The Eternal Jew" would be a goer in Hollywood? Why do you keep dodging this one?

Quote:

If I made a film mocking spear fishing, would you give me your personal reassurance that no individuals from the spear fishing community in the west would respond with violence?

You mean other than killing fish? Sure. You'd have to go looking for it.

I have not seen the eternal jew.


Quote:

Wow thats dumb even for you FD. The whole community? Or did you just mean individuals from that community?

What is the distinction you are trying to make? Are you saying that some individuals might respond with violence, but not the whole community?

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 11:50am:

What is the distinction you are trying to make? Are you saying that some individuals might respond with violence, but not the whole community?

Precisely FD, the distinction that you didn't make.

Did you really envisage every man woman and child from "the Muslim community in western countries" rising up as one to commit violence? Kinda like a mindless collective? Or did you just do your usual deliberate blurring of the lines between "all muslims" and "some musilms" to smear the entire community?

You can't guarantee a single individual from the spearfishing community won't react violently to a movie mocking spearfishing anymore than I can guarantee not a single muslim in the west won't ract violently to a Muhammad mocking movie.


freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 11:50am:

I have not seen the eternal jew.

Suffice to say, its not a feel-good film with loveable jews that makes up your list.

You didn't present films that ridicule jews, you produced films that literally do the opposite. Have you even seen any of them?

So you would not give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie?

Mock their sicko prophet?

Sweden: Muslim foundation complains to police after Muhammad cartoons found

May 29, 2019 4:30 pm By Christine Douglass-Williams

A Muslim organisation in the Swedish city of Växjö have complained to local police after claiming to have found posters in an area of the city that caricatures the Muslim prophet, Mohammed.
Members of the Växjö Muslim Foundation made reports to the local police saying that they had discovered several posters depicting and insulting the prophet Mohammed in the Araby area of the city in Nydalavägen, Hjalmar Petris road and the Ulriksberg promenade, Swedish broadcaster Sveriges Radio reports.

Police spokesman Robert Loeffel labelled the posters as being offensive to the local Muslim community but did not divulge what was actually portrayed on the posters themselves. The police did say that they were considering the posters as a crime, describing it as hate against an ethnic group.

Evil has to run rampant on earth before mankind will revert to righteousness, that's what Ye Scribes of Olde all told us.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 2:03pm:

So you would not give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie?

You still haven't confirmed if its every muslm man woman and child in the west that would be the threat, or just individuals from that community.

I need this confirmed before I can answer FD. I thought I made that clear.

Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it?

Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't.

Quote:

You still haven't confirmed if its every muslm man woman and child in the west that would be the threat, or just individuals from that community.

Are you trying to backpedal Gandalf?

No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question.

Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify?

If its the former then yes, if the latter then no.

Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it?

Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't.

When Muslim leaders speak about the 'Muslim community', what do they mean?

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 2:03pm:

So you would not give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie?

As I said in another thread, you mock Muhammad and Muslims every day. And dont even get me started on old Frank.

Yet you both live to 'fight' another day.

On and on and on.

So incredibly brave.

Yes Annie, but its not a Hollywood blockbuster, so you know, it doesn't count.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 8:10pm:

Yes Annie, but its not a Hollywood blockbuster, so you know, it doesn't count.

Surely you too admire their bravery in the face of such danger.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 6:04pm:

No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't.

Me too. I'd like FD to clarify whether Moslems in Australasian mosques are 100% safe from being shot by Whitey.

FD?

Oh I do Annie.

FD made much of the fact that he was putting himself in mortal danger when he posted the Charlie Hebdo cartoons on his home page.

He is such a selfless and brave freedom fighter is our FD.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 6:58pm:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:03pm: So you would not give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie? As I said in another thread, you mock Muhammad and Muslims every day. And dont even get me started on old Frank. Yet you both live to 'fight' another day. On and on and on. So incredibly brave.

That's true, Annie. One of FD's biggest thrills to date was posting that cartoon of Moh. He said he never felt better - truly life-affirming. FD never felt so alive.

Oh yes, it was touch and go there for a sec, but it all worked out in the end.

You should give it a go sometime, dear.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 6:04pm:

No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't.

So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad?

The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini


Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism.


There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel.


The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold.

If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it.

Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty. 

https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 8:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad?

And how many Freeeeeedom-lovers would kill off the Muselman?

Currently, the Australian score stands at 55 to 2.

You?

Frank wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 8:57pm:

The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism. There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel. The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold. If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it. Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty.  https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf

Do you know? I agree. Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages really is a drag, and I drink it all the time.

As do you, old boy. You are, after all, the exception to the general rule: never trust a man who doesn't drink.

You do, after all, drink. And you're not to be trusted.

But it is a sin, and Moh's right to condemn it. If your Muselman can get through his tedious life without drugs, he's got my support.

You won't find a Lutheran in the same boat, and we know you can't trust them.

Jesus Christ. Abu has risen from the dead.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2019 at 9:02am:

Jesus Christ. Abu has risen from the dead.

He's  back from Islamo-bad,  Pakistan.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2019 at 9:02am:

Jesus Christ. Abu has risen from the dead.

If the old boy can do it, so can Abu.

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2019 at 9:02am:

Jesus Christ. Abu has risen from the dead.

I have heard much about this Abu dude....and it turns out to be Karnal!

:o

Aussie wrote on Jun 1^st, 2019 at 3:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 1st, 2019 at 9:02am: Jesus Christ. Abu has risen from the dead. I have heard much about this Abu dude....and it turns out to be Karnal! :o

And I would have got away with it if it wasn't for that miserable mystery sleuth, FD.

Nah.

[quote]
Karnal wrote on Jun 1^st, 2019 at 6:03pm:

[quote author=Aussie link=1558405435/73#73 date=1559367835][quote author=freediver link=1558405435/70#70 date=1559343746]Jesus Christ. Abu has risen from the dead.

Any time anyone 'quotes' you, that's what comes up.

.

---

Karnal wrote on Jun 1^st, 2019 at 6:55pm:

.something like yabbity yabbity muslim good white evil or some such crap

Well it fits in with all the other loony left lies and muslim terror support.

moses wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2019 at 1:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 1st, 2019 at 6:55pm: .something like yabbity yabbity muslim good white evil or some such crap Well it fits in with all the other loony left lies and muslim terror support.

Wise words indeed, Moses.

Who said that?

Karnal wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 9:24pm:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad? And how many Freeeeeedom-lovers would kill off the Muselman? Currently, the Australian score stands at 55 to 2. You?

Nope. It's 91-55. You forgot about Bali.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2019 at 6:01pm:

Karnal wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 9:24pm: freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad? And how many Freeeeeedom-lovers would kill off the Muselman? Currently, the Australian score stands at 55 to 2. You? Nope. It's 91-55. You forgot about Bali.

Nope, that's not in Australiasia.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 8:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad?

Thats what I'm asking you FD - as oppsed to the entire "muslim community". You seem reluctant to clarify. I'm not sure why.

Do you think its rational or reasonable that I could guarantee that not a single muslim from the entire western world would react violently to your film? And if I can't, is it rational or reasonable to conclude that such a venture is therefore inherently unsafe?

Quote:

Thats what I'm asking you FD - as oppsed to the entire "muslim community". You seem reluctant to clarify. I'm not sure why.

I don't think the question even makes sense. You cannot get your head chopped off by 100000 different people at the same time. I assumed you were just backpedaling on your claim that someone would have no reason to fear for their life if they starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad.

Is that what you are doing?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2019 at 9:00am:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad? Thats what I'm asking you FD - as oppsed to the entire "muslim community". You seem reluctant to clarify. I'm not sure why. Do you think its rational or reasonable that I could guarantee that not a single muslim from the entire western world would react violently to your film? And if I can't, is it rational or reasonable to conclude that such a venture is therefore inherently unsafe?

Islam, nothing else, would make them go apeshite, as they always do.
Can you guarantee that there in nothing in Islam to make them go berserk?

No.



No Lutheran will go apeshit over a Mohammad  movie. Guaranteed. Muslims will go apeshit for Islam and Mohammad for a lot less than a movie. Apeshit is your opening response to anything concerning Islam and Mohammad. 

You are all mad eastern bozos who have never learned to be a little bit detached. Just a little. No, you all take yourselves and Islam and Mo supremely seriously.

Po faced and violent.

Frank wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2019 at 8:57pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 9:00am: freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad? Thats what I'm asking you FD - as oppsed to the entire "muslim community". You seem reluctant to clarify. I'm not sure why. Do you think its rational or reasonable that I could guarantee that not a single muslim from the entire western world would react violently to your film? And if I can't, is it rational or reasonable to conclude that such a venture is therefore inherently unsafe? Islam, nothing else, would make them go apeshite, as they always do. Can you guarantee that there in nothing in Islam to make them go berserk? No. No Lutheran will go apeshit over a Mohammad  movie. Guaranteed. Muslims will go apeshit for Islam and Mohammad for a lot less than a movie. Apeshit is your opening response to anything concerning Islam and Mohammad.  You are all mad eastern bozos who have never learned to be a little bit detached. Just a little. No, you all take yourselves and Islam and Mo supremely seriously. Po faced and violent.

I know, but put a price on a silly old tulip, and they'll go into a right old tizz.

Always absolutely never ever, eh?

*Eating popcorn while waiting for Europe to make France their Christian sacrifice to appease the Moslems. Watch France burn like a Cathedral.

Sweden was sacrificed at the last ramadan dan dan.

Karnal wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2019 at 10:26pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 8:57pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 9:00am: freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:47pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 6:04pm: No FD, I'm trying to get you to clarify the question. Is "the Muslim community in western countries" every single member, or just some of them. I wonder why you didn't specify? If its the former then yes, if the latter then no. Could you give a film maker wanting to mock spear fishing your personal reassurance that not a single spear fisher would kill them for it? Or more sensibly, could you give me your personal reassurance that when I fly out on Monday my plane won't crash? And even if you can't, does that necessarily mean that you think flying is unsafe? I don't. So only a tiny minority of Muslims would kill actors who starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad? Thats what I'm asking you FD - as oppsed to the entire "muslim community". You seem reluctant to clarify. I'm not sure why. Do you think its rational or reasonable that I could guarantee that not a single muslim from the entire western world would react violently to your film? And if I can't, is it rational or reasonable to conclude that such a venture is therefore inherently unsafe? Islam, nothing else, would make them go apeshite, as they always do. Can you guarantee that there in nothing in Islam to make them go berserk? No. No Lutheran will go apeshit over a Mohammad  movie. Guaranteed. Muslims will go apeshit for Islam and Mohammad for a lot less than a movie. Apeshit is your opening response to anything concerning Islam and Mohammad.  You are all mad eastern bozos who have never learned to be a little bit detached. Just a little. No, you all take yourselves and Islam and Mo supremely seriously. Po faced and violent. I know, but put a price on a silly old tulip, and they'll go into a right old tizz. Always absolutely never ever, eh?

The paki Keyzar Trad to Gandalf's mufti. Translating.

Karnal wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 9:32pm:

Frank wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:57pm: The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism. There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel. The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold. If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it. Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty.  https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf Do you know? I agree. Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages really is a drag, and I drink it all the time. As do you, old boy. You are, after all, the exception to the general rule: never trust a man who doesn't drink. You do, after all, drink. And you're not to be trusted. But it is a sin, and Moh's right to condemn it. If your Muselman can get through his tedious life without drugs, he's got my support. You won't find a Lutheran in the same boat, and we know you can't trust them.

Where do you, as the spokesthingy for mufti  Abu Gandalf, stand on treating livestock like your fourth wife? What's  the paki/mufti insight on that? A woman's  testimony  is worth half a man's. What's a ewe's  bleat worth in Islam? A cow's  low?  A camel's grunt? An Abdul's  groan in an Auburn toilet?

You know  it all.  Report back.

Frank wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

Karnal wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:57pm: The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism. There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel. The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold. If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it. Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty.  https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf Do you know? I agree. Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages really is a drag, and I drink it all the time. As do you, old boy. You are, after all, the exception to the general rule: never trust a man who doesn't drink. You do, after all, drink. And you're not to be trusted. But it is a sin, and Moh's right to condemn it. If your Muselman can get through his tedious life without drugs, he's got my support. You won't find a Lutheran in the same boat, and we know you can't trust them. Where do you, as the spokesthingy for mufti  Abu Gandalf, stand on treating livestock like your fourth wife? What's  the paki/mufti insight on that? A woman's  testimony  is worth half a man's. What's a ewe's  bleat worth in Islam? A cow's  low?  A camel's grunt? An Abdul's  groan in an Auburn toilet? You know  it all.  Report back.

What's a Boong's testimony worth in a colonial Australian court, dear boy?

Nothing. The savages couldn't swear on the Bible, so they were out.

You wouldn't know that one, old chap, you flew here. But you show us where your women's-testimony-is-worth-half-a-man's applies in any legal jurisdiction today.

Go on. Any dirty backward tinted jurisdiction at all.

We'll wait.

Karnal wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 6:47pm: Karnal wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:57pm: The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism. There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel. The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold. If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it. Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty.  https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf Do you know? I agree. Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages really is a drag, and I drink it all the time. As do you, old boy. You are, after all, the exception to the general rule: never trust a man who doesn't drink. You do, after all, drink. And you're not to be trusted. But it is a sin, and Moh's right to condemn it. If your Muselman can get through his tedious life without drugs, he's got my support. You won't find a Lutheran in the same boat, and we know you can't trust them. Where do you, as the spokesthingy for mufti  Abu Gandalf, stand on treating livestock like your fourth wife? What's  the paki/mufti insight on that? A woman's  testimony  is worth half a man's. What's a ewe's  bleat worth in Islam? A cow's  low?  A camel's grunt? An Abdul's  groan in an Auburn toilet? You know  it all.  Report back. What's a Boong's testimony worth in a colonial Australian court, dear boy? Nothing. The savages couldn't swear on the Bible, so they were out. You wouldn't know that one, old chap, you flew here. But you show us where your women's-testimony-is-worth-half-a-man's applies in any legal jurisdiction today. Go on. Any dirty backward tinted jurisdiction at all. We'll wait.

A very inelegant - for he's a paki - evasive attempt. But very Muslim (dishonestly evasive).

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 6:58pm:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:03pm: So you would not give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie? As I said in another thread, you mock Muhammad and Muslims every day. And dont even get me started on old Frank. Yet you both live to 'fight' another day. On and on and on. So incredibly brave.

Would you have any reason to fear assassination if you starred in a movie that mocked Muhammad??

Frank wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 9:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 7:35pm: Frank wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 6:47pm: Karnal wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 9:32pm: Frank wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:57pm: The Little Green Book — Ayatollah Khomeini Islam is a religion of those who struggle for truth and justice, of those who clamor for liberty and independence. It is the school of those who fight against colonialism. There are eleven things which are impure: urine, excrement, sperm, bones, blood, dogs, pigs, non-Muslim men and women, wine, beer, and the sweat of the excrement-eating camel. The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold. If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it. Drinking wine or alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin, and is strictly forbidden. Whoever consumes an alcoholic beverage retains only a part of his soul, that part of it which is deformed and nasty; he is damned by Allah, His archangels, His prophets, and His believers. Such a man’s daily prayers are rejected by Allah for forty days. On the day of the resurrection of the dead, his face will turn black, his tongue will hang out of his mouth, his saliva will run down his chest, and he will remain forever thirsty.  https://islammonitor.org/uploads/docs/greenbook.pdf Do you know? I agree. Drinking wine and alcoholic beverages really is a drag, and I drink it all the time. As do you, old boy. You are, after all, the exception to the general rule: never trust a man who doesn't drink. You do, after all, drink. And you're not to be trusted. But it is a sin, and Moh's right to condemn it. If your Muselman can get through his tedious life without drugs, he's got my support. You won't find a Lutheran in the same boat, and we know you can't trust them. Where do you, as the spokesthingy for mufti  Abu Gandalf, stand on treating livestock like your fourth wife? What's  the paki/mufti insight on that? A woman's  testimony  is worth half a man's. What's a ewe's  bleat worth in Islam? A cow's  low?  A camel's grunt? An Abdul's  groan in an Auburn toilet? You know  it all.  Report back. What's a Boong's testimony worth in a colonial Australian court, dear boy? Nothing. The savages couldn't swear on the Bible, so they were out. You wouldn't know that one, old chap, you flew here. But you show us where your women's-testimony-is-worth-half-a-man's applies in any legal jurisdiction today. Go on. Any dirty backward tinted jurisdiction at all. We'll wait. A very inelegant - for he's a paki - evasive attempt. But very Muslim (dishonestly evasive).

Can't say, eh?

What a slimy little stool-fancier you are, what a hideous bloated corpse.

Come back when you've been tagged, dear boy, we'll have a chat with your jolly old estate.

Sorry, mourning old estate. I'm shure they'll be suitably upset.

You have a nice long rest.

Islam, despite its huge and baseless claims for itself, has absolutely nothing to offer the freeborn Westerners except degradation or subservience. Debasement one way or another..
It is amazing how and why Western governments want to accomodate Islam. 

Here's one from the archives.


Frank wrote on Jun 5^th, 2019 at 6:45pm:

Islam, despite its huge and baseless claims for itself, has absolutely nothing to offer the freeborn Westerners except degradation or subservience. Debasement one way or another.. It is amazing how and why Western governments want to accomodate Islam.

He posted this one 20 years ago.

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2019 at 7:35pm:

Here's one from the archives. Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 6:45pm: Islam, despite its huge and baseless claims for itself, has absolutely nothing to offer the freeborn Westerners except degradation or subservience. Debasement one way or another.. It is amazing how and why Western governments want to accomodate Islam.  He posted this one 20 years ago.

And in all those 1400 years you have never once said what Islam's  benefits might be for the West or the world.

If Islam  has any benefit, SAY what it is.  You won't  because it hasn't.  Grinning like a shite-eating Paki that you are, year in year out,  is not sufficient.

Frank wrote on Jun 5^th, 2019 at 8:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 7:35pm: Here's one from the archives. Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 6:45pm: Islam, despite its huge and baseless claims for itself, has absolutely nothing to offer the freeborn Westerners except degradation or subservience. Debasement one way or another.. It is amazing how and why Western governments want to accomodate Islam.  He posted this one 20 years ago. And in all those 1400 years you have never once said what Islam's  benefits might be for the West or the world. If Islam  has any benefit, SAY what it is.  You won't  because it hasn't.  Grinning like a shite-eating Paki that you are, year in year out,  is not sufficient.

He's done this one too. Uncanny. He's forgotten every reply since 2001, when he got started on the Muselman.

No worries, he's passed on now. I'm shure the old boy will rest in peace, confident in the knowledge that he is still remembered, loved and missed.

Yes, the old boy, PBUH.

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2019 at 9:35pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 8:55pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 7:35pm: Here's one from the archives. Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 6:45pm: Islam, despite its huge and baseless claims for itself, has absolutely nothing to offer the freeborn Westerners except degradation or subservience. Debasement one way or another.. It is amazing how and why Western governments want to accomodate Islam.  He posted this one 20 years ago. And in all those 1400 years you have never once said what Islam's  benefits might be for the West or the world. If Islam  has any benefit, SAY what it is.  You won't  because it hasn't.  Grinning like a shite-eating Paki that you are, year in year out,  is not sufficient. He's done this one too. Uncanny. He's forgotten every reply since 2001, when he got started on the Muselman. No worries, he's passed on now. I'm shure the old boy will rest in peace, confident in the knowledge that he is still remembered, loved and missed. Yes, the old boy, PBUH.

If Islam  has any benefit, SAY what it is.   When your mouth isn't full.

Frank wrote on Jun 6^th, 2019 at 6:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 9:35pm: Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 8:55pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 7:35pm: Here's one from the archives. Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2019 at 6:45pm: Islam, despite its huge and baseless claims for itself, has absolutely nothing to offer the freeborn Westerners except degradation or subservience. Debasement one way or another.. It is amazing how and why Western governments want to accomodate Islam.  He posted this one 20 years ago. And in all those 1400 years you have never once said what Islam's  benefits might be for the West or the world. If Islam  has any benefit, SAY what it is.  You won't  because it hasn't.  Grinning like a shite-eating Paki that you are, year in year out,  is not sufficient. He's done this one too. Uncanny. He's forgotten every reply since 2001, when he got started on the Muselman. No worries, he's passed on now. I'm shure the old boy will rest in peace, confident in the knowledge that he is still remembered, loved and missed. Yes, the old boy, PBUH. If Islam  has any benefit, SAY what it is.   When your mouth isn't full.

Forgotten, have you?

Perfectly understandable. You are, after all, dead.

Quote:

I don't think the question even makes sense. You cannot get your head chopped off by 100000 different people at the same time.

It makes no sense at all. So why did you ask it as if it did make sense? Did your common sense alarm not trigger as soon as you said something so non-sensical as to ask what "the Muslim community in western countries" might or might not do - as if they are a single entity?


freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2019 at 3:43pm:

I assumed you were just backpedaling on your claim that someone would have no reason to fear for their life if they starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad. Is that what you are doing?

That is a lie FD, I never said they would "have no reason". I specifically said people fear all sorts of things, and the question is whether or not it is rational or reasonable. Its there in reply# 49.

I had "reason to fear for my life" when I flew out of the country on Monday.

It just wasn't a terribly rational reason. Because I have an irrational fear of flying.

Similarly I would never say that someone has no reason to fear for their lives for making a Muhammad film - but if they did, then like my fear of flying, it would be irrational - based on the actual chances of them dying as a result.

Can I be sure a single individual from the 10s of millions of muslims all around the western world will not seek out and succeed in killing your movie maker? Of course not, and it would be the height of idiocy for me to make such a guarantee. But that does not by any means make such a venture 'unsafe' in the scheme of things. Just like no one could guarantee my plane wouldn't crash on Monday doesn't make flying unsafe.

And just like you can't guarantee a single member of the spear fishing community won't kill someone who makes a movie mocking spear fishers. Which I suspect is why you continue to duck and weave from the question.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2019 at 1:01pm:

Quote: I don't think the question even makes sense. You cannot get your head chopped off by 100000 different people at the same time. It makes no sense at all. So why did you ask it as if it did make sense?

You asked the question Gandalf.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2019 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 3:43pm: I assumed you were just backpedaling on your claim that someone would have no reason to fear for their life if they starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad. Is that what you are doing? That is a lie FD, I never said they would "have no reason".

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:24pm: Do you think people would have any reason to fear assassination if they starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad? Not in Australia.

Not a reasonable or rational reason FD, that should have been obvious thats what I meant from the context.


freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

You asked the question Gandalf.

Actually you did FD, here it is:


freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2019 at 9:59am:

Would you give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie?

Did you actually not mean "the muslim community...", and meant to say "individual(s) from..."? If it was a simple error of ommission, then you could have just said FD, but for some reason you are reluctant to say.

I wonder why it is that being so ambiguous about the distinction between entire populations and individuals from those populations seems to happen so often with you...

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2019 at 10:48pm:

Not a reasonable or rational reason FD, that should have been obvious thats what I meant from the context. freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 5:23pm: You asked the question Gandalf. Actually you did FD, here it is: freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 9:59am: Would you give them your personal reassurance that the Muslim community in western countries would not respond with violence to Muhammad being mocked in a movie? Did you actually not mean "the muslim community...", and meant to say "individual(s) from..."? If it was a simple error of ommission, then you could have just said FD, but for some reason you are reluctant to say. I wonder why it is that being so ambiguous about the distinction between entire populations and individuals from those populations seems to happen so often with you...

They're tinted.

True story: one time FD had a go at me for saying that "Europeans" raped and pillaged the new world.

His complaint was that I wasn't distinguishing between individual Europeans and Europeans en-masse. He even said it was wacist.

Apparently he thinks that this is so outrageous, but saying things like "the ABC proves that muslims are lazy" or question whether "the Muslim community in western countries" would react violently to a film - is somehow ok.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8^th, 2019 at 11:59am:

True story: one time FD had a go at me for saying that "Europeans" raped and pillaged the new world. His complaint was that I wasn't distinguishing between individual Europeans and Europeans en-masse. He even said it was wacist. Apparently he thinks that this is so outrageous, but saying things like "the ABC proves that muslims are lazy" or question whether "the Muslim community in western countries" would react violently to a film - is somehow ok.

True, G. FD's not even allowed to criticize the worst Islamists in the world because tbey're friends with Uncle.

Freeeeeedom, innit.

Apparently FD voted for Fraser Anning in the last erection. Why don't you ask him?

Quote:

Did you actually not mean "the muslim community...", and meant to say "individual(s) from..."?

That's what the Muslim community is made up of Gandalf.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2019 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:24pm: Do you think people would have any reason to fear assassination if they starred in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad? Not in Australia.

Are you backpedaling on this?

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2019 at 1:51pm:

That's what the Muslim community is made up of Gandalf.

Why is it so hard to confirm you only meant individuals from that community, and not every single individual rising as one like a mindless collective? Do you find it just a little inconsistent that you berate me for using the word "Europeans" to describe individuals who raped and pillaged the new world, but see no problem when you talk about "the Muslim community in western countries" acting violently - when you actually only meant some individuals from that community?

Also, please read the answers I provide before mindlessly repeating the same question. ie post# 101.

Quote:

Why is it so hard to confirm you only meant individuals from that community, and not every single individual rising as one like a mindless collective?

Sounds like a pretty stupid question to me. Is someone going to get their head chopped off by every single Australian Muslim?

Are you backpedaling Gandalf?

I am not backpeddling FD, it should be obvious from the context I meant a logical or reasonable reason. But then you already know that, cause I've told you twice already. And yet you inanely repeat the same question as if it somehow clever? I wonder why. Is it because your now in full blown deflection mode, desperately ducking and weaving from all of my questions?


freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2019 at 3:51pm:

Sounds like a pretty stupid question to me. Is someone going to get their head chopped off by every single Australian Muslim?

Is this your way of conceding 'no, I didn't mean every single muslim in that community as my wording clearly implied'?

Do you find it just a little inconsistent that you berate me for using the word "Europeans" to describe individuals who raped and pillaged the new world, but see no problem when you talk about "the Muslim community in western countries" acting violently - when you actually only meant some individuals from that community?

Quote:

Is this your way of conceding 'no, I didn't mean every single muslim in that community as my wording clearly implied'?

Was it obvious from the context?

It was not obvious from the context, as you seem to go out of your way to blur the distinction between an entire population and some individuals from the community. This is just the latest such example.

It should have been obvious by virtue of the fact that the idea of all individuals across the entire community rising up as one like a mindless borg is an exceedingly stupid one. On the other hand, this is from the same person who asserts that "all muslims support genocide", so... 

Quote:

It was not obvious from the context

And yet clearly implied?

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2019 at 5:33pm:

Quote: It was not obvious from the context And yet clearly implied?

Sure FD, in the same way that "all muslims support genocide" clearly implies err.. not all muslims supporting genocide - right?

Have you aver come across a Muslim over the age of 3 who does not support genocide?

Of course I have - every single one of them.

What a stupid question.

Anyway FD, can you give me your guarantee that "the spear fishing community" (by which I of course mean mere individuals from that community) will not react violently to a film that mocks spear fishing?

Do you think that not being able to give that guarantee makes spear-fishing mocking films a dangerous enterprise?

Or similarly, do you think that not being able to guarantee that my next flight will not crash means that flying on commercial flights is generally not safe?

I feel like I've asked you that before - several times.

What was wrong with my last answer Gandalf?

Never mind FD, you don't have to answer.

So anyway, where were we up to on the 'jew-mocking' films? So far I think we have a top 10 list of romantic comedies were the hero is an loveable jew, mob movies set in new york that invariably involve jewish criminals, and the Passion of the Christ.

Tell me FD, do you think that list proves that 'jew mocking' is off limits in Hollywood, or did you have something else?

Any films where say the film makers deliberately set out to specifically ridicule and offend jews or judaism in a comparitive way to how "Innoncence of Muslims" deliberately set out to ridicule and offend muslims?

You tell me you are unfamiliar with "The Eternal Jew" - here you go you can read all about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_(1940_film)

Just try and get a basic picture of the general themes, for example:


Quote:

A scene depicts four bearded men in traditional religious Jewish clothing, then shows them shaved and in modern business suits, while the narrator explains that only a "trained eye" can distinguish their Jewish features. "Where rats appear, they bring ruin by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious, underground destruction – just like the Jews among human beings."

Now try and imagine the same film, or similar, being remade by Hollywood today. Do you reckon a film like that would be do-able? Try and say 'yes' with a straight face.

*THIS* is the sort of film that is far more equivalent to the "Innocence of muslims" or the sort of Muhammad mocking film you have in mind than idiotic suggestions like Keeping the Faith or New York gangster movies.

Quote:

Never mind FD, you don't have to answer.

You could always save me the trouble and copy and paste the last one I gave.


Quote:

So anyway, where were we up to on the 'jew-mocking' films?

You were reassuring us that actors would have no reason to fear for their lives if they starred in a movie that mocks Muhammad. But also conceding they might get their head chopped off by a tiny minority of Muslims.

Mel Gibson still has his, BTW.

missed the question did you FD?

Never mind, here it is again:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 10:25pm:

Any films where say the film makers deliberately set out to specifically ridicule and offend jews or judaism in a comparitive way to how "Innoncence of Muslims" deliberately set out to ridicule and offend muslims? You tell me you are unfamiliar with "The Eternal Jew" - here you go you can read all about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew_(1940_film) Just try and get a basic picture of the general themes, for example: Quote: A scene depicts four bearded men in traditional religious Jewish clothing, then shows them shaved and in modern business suits, while the narrator explains that only a "trained eye" can distinguish their Jewish features. "Where rats appear, they bring ruin by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious, underground destruction – just like the Jews among human beings." Now try and imagine the same film, or similar, being remade by Hollywood today. Do you reckon a film like that would be do-able?

And a supplimentary: if 'the eternal jew' or equivalent was made by Hollywood, do you reckon you could guarantee that no jew would react violently? (hint: bit different to passion of the Christ)

Can you comprehend yet how much more offensive a film like Innocense of Muslims is to muslims than something like Keeping the Faith would be to jews?

Quote:

Can you comprehend yet how much more offensive a film like Innocense of Muslims is to muslims than something like Keeping the Faith would be to jews?

I don't care how offended Muslims get Gandalf. They shouldn't start killing people for mocking their religion. And you shouldn't lie about it.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2019 at 11:49pm:

Quote: Can you comprehend yet how much more offensive a film like Innocense of Muslims is to muslims than something like Keeping the Faith would be to jews? I don't care how offended Muslims get Gandalf. They shouldn't start killing people for mocking their religion. And you shouldn't lie about it.

And I don't care how many feel-good romantic love stories you can present, Islam-mocking is not the only religion mocking that is off-limits to Hollywood. And you shouldn't lie about that, or the idea that Islam mocking in any mainstream media is only off-limits because of jihadists.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2019 at 12:20am:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:49pm: Quote: Can you comprehend yet how much more offensive a film like Innocense of Muslims is to muslims than something like Keeping the Faith would be to jews? I don't care how offended Muslims get Gandalf. They shouldn't start killing people for mocking their religion. And you shouldn't lie about it. And I don't care how many feel-good romantic love stories you can present, Islam-mocking is not the only religion mocking that is off-limits to Hollywood. And you shouldn't lie about that, or the idea that Islam mocking in any mainstream media is only off-limits because of jihadists.

Christians and Jews  won't kill you for making jokes about them.

Muslims have killed for jokes. Always will. No place for Islam in the West.  It is an intolerant, violent and totalitarian creed with no redeeming aspects.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2019 at 12:20am:

freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:49pm: Quote: Can you comprehend yet how much more offensive a film like Innocense of Muslims is to muslims than something like Keeping the Faith would be to jews? I don't care how offended Muslims get Gandalf. They shouldn't start killing people for mocking their religion. And you shouldn't lie about it. And I don't care how many feel-good romantic love stories you can present, Islam-mocking is not the only religion mocking that is off-limits to Hollywood. And you shouldn't lie about that, or the idea that Islam mocking in any mainstream media is only off-limits because of jihadists.

You are missing the point Gandalf. If Hollywood refrains from mocking Jews because it is unpopular, that is entirely irrelevant to whether an actor has any reason to fear for their life if they star in a movie mocking Muhammad.

But nice try at shifting blame to the Jews.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2019 at 7:15pm:

You are missing the point Gandalf. If Hollywood refrains from mocking Jews because it is unpopular, that is entirely irrelevant to whether an actor has any reason to fear for their life if they star in a movie mocking Muhammad.

And I already told you they don't have any rational reason to fear for their life - no more so than if a jew-mocking movie was ever made (we can't know for sure because such a film hasn't been done since nazi times, and probably never will).

They would however have a very rational reason to fear for their career, and that goes for both Muhammad mockers and jew mockers.

So your attempts to portray avoidance of Muhammad mocking films as only based on a fear of violence doesn't just misses the point, it reinvents it entirely.

Quote:

And I already told you they don't have any rational reason to fear for their life - no more so than if a jew-mocking movie was ever made (we can't know for sure because such a film hasn't been done since nazi times, and probably never will).

Are you saying they wouldn't have a rational reason to fear for their life, or they would, but that is OK because of all the head hacking Jews?

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 12:23pm:

Are you saying they wouldn't have a rational reason to fear for their life

Only about 5 times FD.

So you are also saying an actor starring in a movie that mocks Jews would have no rational reason to fear for their life?

Yes FD.

I'm not sure why you are confused by that. Its not like I wasn't very clear on that:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2019 at 10:12pm:

And I already told you they don't have any rational reason to fear for their life - no more so than if a jew-mocking movie was ever made

He's evading, FD. Ask him again.

Would an actor who starred in a movie mocking Muhammad be able to travel to any Muslim-majority nation without having a rational reason to fear for their life?

I think they would be fine in Indonesia or Malaysia FD - probably not Afghanistan.

But do continue shifting the goalposts.

Not the goalposts Gandalf. Just getting a measure of your delusion. Would you put Turkey in with Indonesia and Malaysia?

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 7:02pm:

Would an actor who starred in a movie mocking Muhammad be able to travel to any Muslim-majority nation without having a rational reason to fear for their life?

Let's really get him, FD.

Gandalf, would an actor who starred in a movie smearing stool on Muhammad be able to travel to any ISIS-run town without having a rational reason to fear for their life?

You tell us that, G.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2019 at 9:41pm:

Would you put Turkey in with Indonesia and Malaysia?

I honestly don't know FD. What is your point by the way? Notice how we've seamlessly diverted away from your original point about Australian muslim-mocking movie makers being unsafe per se - to now their endangerment being conditional upon which country they visit? Some might describe that as shifting the goalposts.

Do you think someone who made a 'The Eternal Jew' remake would be safe doing a tour of a west bank settlement?

Quote:

What is your point by the way?

To get a measure of your delusion.


Quote:

Notice how we've seamlessly diverted away from your original point about Australian muslim-mocking movie makers being unsafe per se - to now their endangerment being conditional upon which country they visit?

You have spent 9 pages trying to avoid the actual topic.


Quote:

Do you think someone who made a 'The Eternal Jew' remake would be safe doing a tour of a west bank settlement?

I haven't seen the movie. I wouldn't consider a west bank settlement to be safe for anyone, regardless of how popular they are.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2019 at 6:41pm:

You have spent 9 pages trying to avoid the actual topic.

Thats funny FD, I thought the "topic" - apart from attempting petty smears on mothra and Annie by inventing what they said - came down to the question 'would someone involved in a Muhammad-mocking film in the west (either starring in or producing) have any reason to fear for their life (from jihadists)" - to which my unequivocal answer was "no - not a rational one". I then pointed out that youtube and other social media is replete with muhammad and Islam mocking - suggesting that a) people are not cowering from producing Muhammad mocking media and b) it seems to be quite safe.

So thats when we got to goalpost shifting 1 - which was "yeah but what about Hollywood films - there are none of those right??" To which I responded the reason why Hollywood doesn't touch those movies is not due to fear of death, but fear of reputation from the PC police - and I prosecuted this case by referencing the fact that Hollywood also won't touch non-christian culture/religion mocking - particularly pertaining to judaism. You then tried to refute this by coming up with a "top 10" of supposedly "jew mocking" films. Unfortunately, all you came up with was a list of feel-good romantic comedies involving jews. Desperately you then mentioned The Passion of the Christ and (laughably) a vague reference to New York ganster movies - which you just assume involves disparaging references to jews, though no specifics. What you singularly failed to do was come up with anything remotely comparable to the sort of Muhammad/Islam mocking you had in mind, equivalent to say the Innocence of Muslims. So I helpfully referenced a nazi era film called "The Eternal Jew" - and even gave you a synopsis of it, and asked you to consider if anything like that was "do-able" in Hollywood today. Your response was the predictable "me no speaka da English" routine. I interpreted that as "yes Gandalf, you are right - such a proposal would be absolutely proposterous in Hollywood" - in FD speak.

So after that big fail, you moved on to goalpost shifting 2 - which was to abandon the direct contention that Muhammad-mocking movie makers/actors were inherently unsafe from jihadis, and instead did the old switcheroo: posing the rhetorical question "could you guarantee that no western muslim would react violently toa hypothetical Muhammad-mocking film"? - which is exactly as absurd an "argument" as it sounds - and obviously a million miles from being the same as saying that Muhammad mocking actors/producers would have good reason to fear for their lives. No less absurd and flawed as me putting it to you that you couldn't guarantee my next flight would not crash, and that therefore implies that commercial flying is inherently unsafe (which it demonstrably isn't).

So we then arrive at the 3rd and final goalpost shift - which is to change 'western Muhammad-mocking film makers/actors are unsafe per se' to 'western Muhammad-mocking film makers/actors might be unsafe - *IF* they happen to visit certain specific muslim majority countries'. You then laughably invite me to nominate which countries they might be unsafe in.

Thats where we're at FD. As usual you've run out of deflections, or possibly got sick of making them up. You're getting tired of maintaining the ridiculous ruse that my answers have been anything other than clear, measured and direct responses to your exact questions, and now resort to the trusty old "You have spent x pages... [not giving the responses I wanted]".

In other words, pretty much another text book FD thread of incoherence.

Quote:

I then pointed out that youtube and other social media is replete with muhammad and Islam mocking - suggesting that a) people are not cowering from producing Muhammad mocking media and b) it seems to be quite safe. So thats when we got to goalpost shifting 1

Are you not shifting the goal posts by equating the mockery of Muhammad on social media with starring in a movie that mocks Muhammad?

Would you say that Theo Van Gogh was over-reacting, or behaving irrationally, when he died from his stab wounds?

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 1:18pm:

Are you not shifting the goal posts by equating the mockery of Muhammad on social media with starring in a movie

Movies are made on youtube these days FD. There are even youtube "stars". Your original question didn't specify Hollywood - yet thats what you insisted it be about after that.


freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 1:18pm:

Would you say that Theo Van Gogh was over-reacting, or behaving irrationally, when he died from his stab wounds?

I think he was killed for making a movie mocking Muhammad.

Yet, one notorious anecdote doesn't make the practice inherently unsafe - no more so than a single air disaster makes commercial flying inherently unsafe.

Quote:

Movies are made on youtube these days FD. There are even youtube "stars". Your original question didn't specify Hollywood - yet thats what you insisted it be about after that.

How many full length features are you faimilar with that were made on youtube?


Quote:

I think he was killed for making a movie mocking Muhammad. Yet, one notorious anecdote doesn't make the practice inherently unsafe - no more so than a single air disaster makes commercial flying inherently unsafe.

Does Salman Rushdie have a rational reason to fear for his life?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 1:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 1:18pm: Are you not shifting the goal posts by equating the mockery of Muhammad on social media with starring in a movie Movies are made on youtube these days FD. There are even youtube "stars". Your original question didn't specify Hollywood - yet thats what you insisted it be about after that. freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 1:18pm: Would you say that Theo Van Gogh was over-reacting, or behaving irrationally, when he died from his stab wounds? I think he was killed for making a movie mocking Muhammad. Yet, one notorious anecdote doesn't make the practice inherently unsafe - no more so than a single air disaster makes commercial flying inherently unsafe.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Don't play the deluded innocent, laddie. One???

This is the fundamental trouble with trying to dialogue Muslims such as you - being honest is simply not in you. It's contrary to your thought-jihad.  You have been trained to grasp every opportunity to de-contextualise, seize every chance to misrepresent. For you to say that there has been only one 'notorious' case where a mocker or critic of Mohammed has been killed is such a bare-faced, obviously knowing lie that only one such as you, a son of Mohammed, can have the hide to advance it. 

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 6:28pm:

How many full length features are you faimilar with that were made on youtube?

;D Oh now it has to be a "full length feature" does it? Funny you never mentioned that before.

Whats that you were saying about not shifting the goalposts?

Quote:

Are you free to star in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad?

Quote:

Would you have any reason to fear assassination if you did?

These were the original proposals presented in the OP. Its worth noting how far the goalposts have changed since then:

1. It has to be a Hollywood film
2. It has to be a "full length feature"
3. the question "would you have any reason to fear assassination" seamlessly evolves into "could you guarantee no muslim in the west would react violently to your film"
4. starring in the film may only be dangerous for you if you travel to certain muslim majority countries - like Afghanistan.

Any others?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 7:34pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 6:28pm: How many full length features are you faimilar with that were made on youtube? ;D Oh now it has to be a "full length feature" does it? Funny you never mentioned that before. Whats that you were saying about not shifting the goalposts?

What did you think I meant when I said movie? A 5 minute youtube clip?

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 8:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 7:34pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 6:28pm: How many full length features are you faimilar with that were made on youtube? ;D Oh now it has to be a "full length feature" does it? Funny you never mentioned that before. Whats that you were saying about not shifting the goalposts? What did you think I meant when I said movie? A 5 minute youtube clip?

I think you initially meant to say that any Muhammad mocking in just about any artistic form is off limits.

You obviously had to change that as soon as it became obvious to you that this is complete rubbish. Hence 10 pages of goalpost shifting.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 10:21pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 8:59pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 7:34pm: freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2019 at 6:28pm: How many full length features are you faimilar with that were made on youtube? ;D Oh now it has to be a "full length feature" does it? Funny you never mentioned that before. Whats that you were saying about not shifting the goalposts? What did you think I meant when I said movie? A 5 minute youtube clip? I think you initially meant to say that any Muhammad mocking in just about any artistic form is off limits. You obviously had to change that as soon as it became obvious to you that this is complete rubbish. Hence 10 pages of goalpost shifting.

Ah, so I am not really saying what I mean? I said a movie, but I really meant a 5 minute youtube clip, which actually means any artistic mockery of Muhammad? Would it be fair to say that your behaviour is typical of Muslims?

Does Salman Rushdie have a rational reason to fear for his life?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 12:41pm:

Ah, so I am not really saying what I mean? I said a movie, but I really meant a 5 minute youtube clip

Of course not FD. You said "a movie" - but evidently you really meant a Hollywood film that also had to be a "full length feature". You just forgot to point that out.

You also asked if someone would have any reason to 'fear assassination" if they made one of these Hollywood full length features. But what you actually meant was "could you guarantee that no muslim would react violently to it".

Again, a simple honest ommission I'm sure.


freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 12:41pm:

Does Salman Rushdie have a rational reason to fear for his life?

Of course he does FD. What are we up to now - goalpost shift number 4?

Quote:

Of course not FD. You said "a movie" - but evidently you really meant a Hollywood film that also had to be a "full length feature".

Here you go, oh slippery, evasive Muslim:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film#Terminology

A "feature-length film", or "feature film", is of a conventional full length, usually 60 minutes or more, and can commercially stand by itself without other films in a ticketed screening.[11] A "short" is a film that is not as long as a feature-length film, often screened with other shorts, or preceding a feature-length film.


Quote:

You also asked if someone would have any reason to 'fear assassination" if they made one of these Hollywood full length features. But what you actually meant was "could you guarantee that no muslim would react violently to it".

You are lying again. I meant what I said. This is going to get very tedious if I have to devote every post to explaining this same point to you.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 2:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:41pm: Does Salman Rushdie have a rational reason to fear for his life? Of course he does FD. What are we up to now - goalpost shift number 4?

How is that shifting the goal posts?


Quote:

Yet, one notorious anecdote doesn't make the practice inherently unsafe - no more so than a single air disaster makes commercial flying inherently unsafe.

I am happy to give you a list of flights that did not crash. Can you give me a similar list of movies that mock Muhammad that did not result in anyone being killed or having reason to fear for their life? Or were you using airplanes to misrepresent the threat posed by Islam to freedom?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:52pm:

Here you go, oh slippery, evasive Muslim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film#Terminology A "feature-length film", or "feature film", is of a conventional full length, usually 60 minutes or more, and can commercially stand by itself without other films in a ticketed screening.[11] A "short" is a film that is not as long as a feature-length film, often screened with other shorts, or preceding a feature-length film.

Thanks FD.

Oh, speaking of slippery, why didn't your original question to either Annie or me ask "Are you free to star in a feature-length film only made by Hollywood" instead of the rather more open-ended "Are you free to star in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad?"

Have you grasped the concept of goal-post shifting yet?


freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:52pm:

You are lying again. I meant what I said.

Sorry FD, you'll have to be more specific - did you "mean what you said" before or after you shifted the goalposts?

Or are you really saying that asking if someone had a reason to fear assassination for making a film is the same as asking for a guarantee that no one in the entire western muslim population would act violently to you starring in a film?

Because if you are, that would be class A fibbing.


freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:52pm:

I am happy to give you a list of flights that did not crash. Can you give me a similar list of movies that mock Muhammad that did not result in anyone being killed or having reason to fear for their life? Or were you using airplanes to misrepresent the threat posed by Islam to freedom?

I could certainly give you a long list of amateur videos "starring" all manner of Islamophobes mocking anything and everything Islam related. You should know, heaps of them are posted here.

And thats the problem you have isn't it? When you rhetorically ask if you could safely "star" in a "Muhammad mocking" movie, there is no reason why it couldn't mean one of these. Its then you have to make the criteria absurdly narrow - Hollywood features that literally don't do *ANY* non-christian religion mocking, and so their reluctance is easilly explained by non-jihadi-intimidation reasons. And so by this stage the point you are trying to make is already lost - the argument that pretty much any artistic criticism of Islam is off limits - and its off limits because of the intimidation from the jihadists. But rather than just concede the point, you engage in the most absurd goal-post shifting exercise, and pretend - apparently with a straight face - that when you originally asked completely open-endedly about "a movie" - you really meant something absurdly specific.

Quote:

Oh, speaking of slippery, why didn't your original question to either Annie or me ask "Are you free to star in a feature-length film only made by Hollywood" instead of the rather more open-ended "Are you free to star in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad?"

Because I didn't think you would try to tell me that movies are made on youtube. Are you running away from that claim, BTW?


Quote:

Or are you really saying that asking if someone had a reason to fear assassination for making a film is the same as asking for a guarantee that no one in the entire western muslim population would act violently to you starring in a film?

Sounds like two different questions to me Gandalf. Do I need to start a new thread for each question?


Quote:

I could certainly give you a long list of amateur videos "starring" all manner of Islamophobes mocking anything and everything Islam related. You should know, heaps of them are posted here.

Which one is closest to passing for a movie?


Quote:

And thats the problem you have isn't it? When you rhetorically ask if you could safely "star" in a "Muhammad mocking" movie, there is no reason why it couldn't mean one of these.

Shall I engage a lawyer next time I want to ask you a question?

freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2019 at 9:02am:

Because I didn't think you would try to tell me that movies are made on youtube.

Epic facepalm.


freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2019 at 9:02am:

Sounds like two different questions to me Gandalf.

Bingo FD - aka 'shifting the goalposts'.


freediver wrote on Jun 25^th, 2019 at 9:02am:

Which one is closest to passing for a movie?

To your absurdly narrow definition? None. To everyone elses, probably thousands or more.

Quote:

Shall I engage a lawyer next time I want to ask you a question?

Good idea, FD.

Aussie, would you mind asking FD a question? He keeps running away.

Quote:

Epic facepalm.

Are you suggesting I ought to anticipate the specific manifastation of your slippery evasiveness?


Quote:

Bingo FD - aka 'shifting the goalposts'.

Am I supposed to start a new thread for every question in an effort to avoid this idiocy?


Quote:

To your absurdly narrow definition? None. To everyone elses, probably thousands or more.

You didn't answer the question Gandalf. Which of those youtube clips do you think comes closest to passing for a movie?

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2019 at 1:17pm:

Are you suggesting I ought to anticipate the specific manifastation of your slippery evasiveness?

I'm suggesting that when you ask a question about "movies", with no qualification, you ought to anticipate the specific manifestation of any type of movie - including, nay especially, the most popular forms of today - ie youtube.


freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2019 at 1:17pm:

Am I supposed to start a new thread for every question in an effort to avoid this idiocy?

no, you can just concede the point when you are proven wrong, and move on to another topic if you so wish. What you are not "supposed" to do is shift the parameters of your argument every time it is disproven - and pretend its what you really meant all along.


freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2019 at 1:17pm:

You didn't answer the question Gandalf. Which of those youtube clips do you think comes closest to passing for a movie?

I did answer, sorry if it was unclear - here it is again:

To your absurdly narrow definition? None. To everyone elses, probably thousands or more.

(hint: I actually think the correct answer is "thousands" - the giveaway being 'everyone else [except you]' but included your absurd option for dramatic effect - to demonstrate how, you know, absurd it is)

Muslim jihadis do not have to pursue every Youtuber, writer, cartoonist who mocks, belittles or dismisses Mohammed, Islam, the Koran and the rest. They just need to target a few, kill them or sue them and let the others watch.  This way self-censorship kicks in pretty effectively.



It is ALWAYS freedom that has to make compromises for Islam. Islam, being a frozen, rigid, petrified creed, will never make a compromise with freedom because it would collapse before our very eyes if it did.  Islam, like all frozen things, is extremely fragile and its violent response to such peripheral trivialities as cartoons, movies and novels is a sure sign of that terrified fragility. Islam has no intellectual depth, no intellectually convincing argument on its side so it responds with violence. Fatwahs - 'let the imam do thee thinking for you" - are the codes for its violent response to every kind of question and reasoning outside its 7th century mindset.

This is what happens when an illiterate man codifies in a 'book' the lives of his fellow illiterates who are then obliged to fetishise that 'book'. Islam is the most startling example of 'mind forged manacles' in our time. Little surprise that so many of them become suicidal.

Quote:

I'm suggesting that when you ask a question about "movies", with no qualification, you ought to anticipate the specific manifestation of any type of movie - including, nay especially, the most popular forms of today - ie youtube.

I have never watched an entire movie on youtube. Nor do I think they are made on youtube, as you suggest.


Quote:

no, you can just concede the point when you are proven wrong, and move on to another topic if you so wish.

It was a question Gandalf. Misunderstanding it, or deliberately misinterpreting it, is not proving it wrong.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2019 at 6:59pm:

Nor do I think they are made on youtube

;D ;D

Shall we start with the definition of "movie"? (hint - its not a byword for "Hollywood")


freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2019 at 6:59pm:

It was a question Gandalf.

Thanks for clarifying FD. And consider it answered - no you would not have any (rational) reason to fear assassination if you "starred in a movie" mocking Muhammad. This includes the most popular form of movie today - youtube/social media productions.

Would you like to shift the goalposts now?

So that's your evasion and you are sticking to it? Normally you like to flip flop between evasions.

you seem to have a funny understanding of 'evasion' FD.

It seems to be along the lines of "directly and specifically responding to your question".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2019 at 7:24pm:

you seem to have a funny understanding of 'evasion' FD. It seems to be along the lines of "directly and specifically responding to your question".

Do I have to start a new thread to ask a different question, or to clarify that movie does not mean youtube clip?

Oh FD, if you wanted to ask specifically about Hollywood movies, then I will gladly answer.

Oh wait, I already have, repeatedly: Hollywood movie makers embarking on, or acting in a Muhammad mocking film won't have any rational reason to fear assassination either. What they absolutely *SHOULD* fear though is their career in the movie making industry coming to a grinding halt - for exactly the same reason as any Hollywood maker of a judaism-mocking, or just about any non-christian religious mocking film should fear. They will be hounded out of the industry not by jihadists, but by non-muslim PC police (for want of a better term).

When you said that an actor who starred in a movie mocking Muhammad would be fine in Indonesia or Malaysia, did you actually mean a short youtube clip?

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2019 at 10:23pm:

When you said that an actor who starred in a movie mocking Muhammad would be fine in Indonesia or Malaysia, did you actually mean a short youtube clip?

Either FD.

Unlike you, I was not secretly restricting my criteria. When I answer a question about "movie" with no qualifications, thats what I'll talk about - movies in all forms.

And the cases of Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh cannot penetrate this delusion?

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/img/insult-islam-290.jpg
Killing Critics

What is the punishment for insulting Islam or Muhammad?

Under Sharia, those who insult Muhammad or Allah are to be executed. So are those who desecrate the Quran or commit other acts of blasphemy. This tradition began with Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith and by his biographers. There is also a Quranic basis for it.

Quran

Quran (6:93) - "Who can be more wicked than one who invent a lie against Allah?" If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most "wicked".

Quran (33:57) - "Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger () Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment"

Quran (33:61) - [continues from above] "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter."

Bloody whiteman the religion of peace has out done itself on this one, if they don't agree with islam well just kill 'em. (so what's new in the depravity in the qur'an?)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 29^th, 2019 at 12:19am:

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2019 at 10:23pm: When you said that an actor who starred in a movie mocking Muhammad would be fine in Indonesia or Malaysia, did you actually mean a short youtube clip? Either FD. Unlike you, I was not secretly restricting my criteria. When I answer a question about "movie" with no qualifications, thats what I'll talk about - movies in all forms.

You will, however, endlessly argue the definition of a 'movie' so as not to face the 'killing of critics of Islam', a far more important issue - and so to be avoided at all costs by Muslims like you.

freediver wrote on Jun 29^th, 2019 at 8:07am:

And the cases of Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh cannot penetrate this delusion?

I wasn't aware Rushdie moved in the movie making business. Remember what I was saying about goalpost shifting?

Is it true that Van Gogh is the only movie maker in the history of movie making that has ever been killed specifically for making a movie mocking Islam?

I wouldn't call the innocence of Muslims a movie. And it is not shifting the goal posts. We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 3:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 29th, 2019 at 8:07am: And the cases of Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh cannot penetrate this delusion? I wasn't aware Rushdie moved in the movie making business. Remember what I was saying about goalpost shifting? Is it true that Van Gogh is the only movie maker in the history of movie making that has ever been killed specifically for making a movie mocking Islam?

Are you a traditionalist or a rationalist?  I think you are constantly jumping in and out. Hilarious. You will seize a peripheral point of a post (what is a 'movie') and divert about it endlessly in order to avoid the central point of almost all posts about Islam and Muslims -  you kill people who disagree with your ideas about Islam.  You are ideological killers, have been from Mohammed on. HE deformed you and you are his manifestations in the world today.
Sons of Mohammed is correct.

Not a compliment.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 5:30pm:

We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies.

so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'?


you and reality don't get along real well, do you FD? :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 8:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm: We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies. so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'? you and reality don't get along real well, do you FD? :D

They don't make the movie because Muslims would kill them. They kill for far less.

You're forgetting, JS. FD posted that cartoon of Moh.

It was touch and go there for a sec, but once he finally stepped up, FD never felt more alive.

As he said, it was one of his finest moments. He's pretty much achieved everything on his bucket list now.

Take that, Muselman. FD lives to fight another day.

And remember, sometimes a question is just a question. Right, G?

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 8:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm: We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies. so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'?

ISLAM teaches the follower of ISLAM, that murdering disbelievers, because they are disbelievers, is halal.

Every follower of ISLAM, is a believer.

And the follower of ISLAM      believes,       that when ISLAM teaches him [i.e. inculcates the idea, in his psyche,] that it is both virtuous and lawful to murder disbelievers,
that it is true.


idea = = a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.      a mental impression.        a belief.



WWW search....
Theo van Gogh, dutch film maker stabbed




"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29




.




WATCH THE MOSLEMS IN AUSTRALIA CALLING FOR THE DESTRUCTION, OF AUSTRALIA;

[there is a segment, when moslems in a hall are encouraging moslem children to be soldiers, and to fight and kill Australians, to destroy Australia, ! And replace Australia with an ISLAMIC state ruled by ISLAMIC law.
And then an 'Aussie' moslem [in Indonesia] shouts;

"...WE, will change the world to suit ISLAM. The moslems living in Australia are also engaging in this struggle."



Muslims brainwash children in Australia
3 min
  -------- >   goto 1min 40 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E



.




WATCH A MOSQUE LEADER IN THE USA, URGING YOUNG MOSLEM MEN;


Quote:

"....be brave [...'and fight and kill the enemies of Allah'] ....grab on to the gun, and the sword, don't be afraid to step out into this world and do your job."

Watch it all the way through !


-------- >

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the Imam
7 min
https://youtu.be/qUYIHRRaPmA


https://youtu.be/qUYIHRRaPmA



These Koran verses were cited in the YT above by the Boston mosque imam, to complain about police and security services in the Boston area 'persecuting' local moslems and a member of the local mosque, in order to incite local moslems to anger about local police investigations into local moslems....

"Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and [for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."
Koran 4.74-76




.




THEY HATE US....

BECAUSE WE ARE NOT MOSLEMS,

THEY HATE US, BECAUSE WE WERE, OR ARE CHRISTIANS.




AND IN THEIR MOSQUES,     WHILE THEY ARE LIVING IN THE WEST,     WE CAN SEE, THAT THEY ARE TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN TO HATE US.

SO SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED WHEN THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM [WHO ARE LIVING AMONG US] KILL US, OR ARE DISCOVERED TO BE PLANNING TO KILL US ?


------ >





Gordon wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2019 at 4:19pm:

This was the 16th alleged planned terror attack police have foiled since the terror threat level in Australia was elevated to probable in 2014. "There are still people who wish to do the community harm. Their actions are criminal and they represent hate and terror," Mr McCartney said.

.




Every moslem is a moslem.

Every moslem is a follower of ISALM.


Australia.....
Refusing to confront those truths, will not make them untrue.

Choosing to deny those truths,     ...won't make them untrue.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 9:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:47pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm: We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies. so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'? you and reality don't get along real well, do you FD? :D They don't make the movie because Muslims would kill them. They kill for far less.

And they don't make judaism-mocking movies because...?

How do you reckon a 'The Eternal Jew"- like production in Hollywood would go down FD? You've never actually said.

Karnal wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 10:46pm:

You're forgetting, JS. FD posted that cartoon of Moh. It was touch and go there for a sec, but once he finally stepped up, FD never felt more alive. As he said, it was one of his finest moments. He's pretty much achieved everything on his bucket list now. Take that, Muselman. FD lives to fight another day. And remember, sometimes a question is just a question. Right, G?

He actually wanted to stand on the street wearing a burqa, but alas he had to forego that one, and settled instead for posting Muhammad cartoons.

But you know, its the thought that counts.

If Gandalf and Abu are trying to make a case that the western world has not had to tiptoe around anything critical of Islam due to fears to life and limb administered by outraged jihadists then I would say they both need to pull their heads out of their arses and take a good look at what’s going and stop being enablers for an intolerant, thin skinned and aggressive religion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 11:43am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 10:46pm: You're forgetting, JS. FD posted that cartoon of Moh. It was touch and go there for a sec, but once he finally stepped up, FD never felt more alive. As he said, it was one of his finest moments. He's pretty much achieved everything on his bucket list now. Take that, Muselman. FD lives to fight another day. And remember, sometimes a question is just a question. Right, G? He actually wanted to stand on the street wearing a burqa, but alas he had to forego that one, and settled instead for posting Muhammad cartoons. But you know, its the thought that counts.

Actually it’s choppy choppy that counts, your bruvvas have demonstrated that.   ::)

Still, so long as you are not a dead cartoonist for offending religious idiots it’s all fun and games and reducto ad absurdum.

Secret, are you actually saying that the west hasn't had to tiptoe around anything critical of judaism too? Far more so if you ask me.

You say that a lack of movies offensive to muslims is proof of the intimidatory power of the terrorists. I say that a similar lack of movies offensive to jews is proof that its the same aversion that applies to both - and has little to do with fear of physical violence, and everything to do with fear of non-jihadi progressive backlashes that would put any actors or producers involved out of business.

FD doesn't want to answer - but how do you explain the lack of any 'The Eternal Jew' like movie, or anything even remotely on the way towards that, in Hollywood?

FD's only answer is pointing to romantic comedies like 'Keeping the faith' where the hero is a loveable jew - and reckons thats a perfect equivalent to 'The Innocence of Muslims'.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 12:12pm:

Secret, are you actually saying that the west hasn't had to tiptoe around anything critical of judaism too? Far more so if you ask me. You say that a lack of movies offensive to muslims is proof of the intimidatory power of the terrorists. I say that a similar lack of movies offensive to jews is proof that its the same aversion that applies to both - and has little to do with fear of physical violence, and everything to do with fear of non-jihadi progressive backlashes that would put any actors or producers involved out of business. FD doesn't want to answer - but how do you explain the lack of any 'The Eternal Jew' like movie, or anything even remotely on the way towards that, in Hollywood? FD's only answer is pointing to romantic comedies like 'Keeping the faith' where the hero is a loveable jew - and reckons thats a perfect equivalent to 'The Innocence of Muslims'.

I didn’t say anything of the sort, I merely stated the obvious, that people are scared of publicly or identifiably being critical of Islam because Islamic front bottoms have proved they will kill you if you do.

If you don’t believe that to be true, speaks more to idiocy or duplicity, ladies choice.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 11:43am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 10:46pm: You're forgetting, JS. FD posted that cartoon of Moh. It was touch and go there for a sec, but once he finally stepped up, FD never felt more alive. As he said, it was one of his finest moments. He's pretty much achieved everything on his bucket list now. Take that, Muselman. FD lives to fight another day. And remember, sometimes a question is just a question. Right, G? He actually wanted to stand on the street wearing a burqa, but alas he had to forego that one, and settled instead for posting Muhammad cartoons. But you know, its the thought that counts.

That's true. FD also wants to climb Ayers Rock, but says he can't be bothered spending 2 days driving through all that boring scenery.

But as he said, what's the point of having the thing if you can't climb it? So racist and unfair.

Anyway, it's a good thing he changed his mind about the burqa. FD might have run into the old boy, who wants to snatch off their letterboxes and give them a piece of his mind.

He hasn't done that yet either, but at least his heart's in the right place, no?

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SoreUnlawfulFrigatebird-size_restricted.gif

FD? Is that you?

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/scooby-doo-unmasking-gif-4.gif

Yes. And I could have climbed it if it wasn't for those meddling wacist Boongs.

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 12:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 12:12pm: I didn’t say anything of the sort, I merely stated the obvious, that people are scared of publicly or identifiably being critical of Islam because Islamic front bottoms have proved they will kill you if you do.

I merely stated that this is baseless rubbish - for all the reasons I stated.

I'll ask again - if fear of being killed is really the reason why artists and others are scared of criticising Islam - then why do the same people demonstrate the same reluctance to criticise judaism and jews? How do you think a "The Eternal Jew" - like production would go down in Hollywood?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 1:03pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 12:19pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2019 at 12:12pm: I didn’t say anything of the sort, I merely stated the obvious, that people are scared of publicly or identifiably being critical of Islam because Islamic front bottoms have proved they will kill you if you do. I merely stated that this is baseless rubbish - for all the reasons I stated. I'll ask again - if fear of being killed is really the reason why artists and others are scared of criticising Islam - then why do the same people demonstrate the same reluctance to criticise judaism and jews? How do you think a "The Eternal Jew" - like production would go down in Hollywood?

Well, they're not too scared to criticise the Boongs. We have some great artists on this forum, G.

Strange how they're the same artists who do portraits of the Muselman, but they're not racist.

Boongs and Muselmen are not a race.

They're a retarded sub-species who worship a rock you can't climb and a big black stone.

a big black stone that will have eyes and talk on judgment day I heard.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 9:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:47pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm: We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies. so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'? you and reality don't get along real well, do you FD? :D They don't make the movie because Muslims would kill them. They kill for far less.

they why aren't you dead? There's certainly plenty off blasphemy towards Islam on your site. If what you say is true, why are you still kicking?

No no it's not blasphemy, cos it doesn't mean what it says an they misinterpreted it, an the people who did it are just such nice boys who were misinformed by T.V. and comic books, we really don't know why they do it.

an anyway they are all the victims of somebody else. (I think that's how it goes)

moses wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 4:15pm:

a big black stone that will have eyes and talk on judgment day I heard.

I'm sorry, Moses, that's just ridiculous.

A day where everyone in history is raised from the dead to face trial?

Come come. Next you'll be telling me it's not meant literally, it doesn't mean what it says.

How typical of your type.

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 4:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:47pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm: We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies. so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'? you and reality don't get along real well, do you FD? :D They don't make the movie because Muslims would kill them. They kill for far less. they why aren't you dead? There's certainly plenty off blasphemy towards Islam on your site. If what you say is true, why are you still kicking?

Because FD's careful about what he says, dear.

Nothing racist or blasphemous or offensive - you know.

Where do the hommers go when they die?

Why do Boongs attract the flies?

Why can't Muslims take a joke?

What sound does a jellyfish make?

All good questions, JS, all curious.

Sometimes a question is just a question, no?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2019 at 11:40am:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 9:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 8:47pm: freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2019 at 5:30pm: We have to resort to authors and cartoonists for examples because there are no movies. so the fact that 'no one was killed for making a movie' because 'no one actually made a movie', in your eyes becomes 'they would be killed for making a movie'? you and reality don't get along real well, do you FD? :D They don't make the movie because Muslims would kill them. They kill for far less. And they don't make judaism-mocking movies because...? How do you reckon a 'The Eternal Jew"- like production in Hollywood would go down FD? You've never actually said.

I have told you plenty of times, I have not seen that movie.

Mel Gibson gives a good example. He made a few public attacks on Jews after The Passion of the Christ. He was mocked and criticised, but not killed. Van Gogh on the other hand is a good example of how Muslims respond.