|dev|null wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:02am:


...good point

After all Hitler was a Christian

And so were the war criminals who dropped nuclear devices on civilian sites in Japan during WW2.

In fact almost all the major wars over the past 200 years have been NON-MUSLIM in origin. Almost entirely Judeo-Christian is origin

(that is if you want to couple a nation's dominant religious preference to acts of war or invasion)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:26am:




Now there's a log bow! That's like saying, "Mohammed was the best of men - therefore all Muslims are the best of men!"
Oh, wait! That IS what Muslim say, isn't it?


OK, well, how about this then? "Jesus was mild and meek, so all Christians are mild and meek!"
No, Muslims wouldn't accept their own logic applied to anyone else, would they?

I forget myself again. Different rules apply to Muslims and others. Sorry.

Quote:


What about in practice? Would they abandon this principle if faced with the reality?

Quote:


Does that mean you don't think people should be allowed to mock Muhammed?

Quote:


Because it suggests that they oppose freedom of speech and that they did not abandon the protest out of respect for freedom of speech, but because they wanted to be more "calculated and planned" in the way they undermine freedom of speech. Before he left Abu was using similar language with reference to Islamic propaganda.

To me, this seems to fit in well with your constant attempts to change the topic to the issue of violence and the rule of law. No-one likes being shot at or beaten up. That is not the same thing as supporting freedom of speech and democracy. Yet you are attempting to subtly equate the two. You even came right out and stated that I erred in not assuming they mean the same thing for you. You are now trying very hard to equate them for the broader Muslim community. These politically savvy deceptions from Muslims make the attacks on freedom of speech and democracy more threatening, not less threatening.

Quote:


Now you are sounding like Brian. What are you accusing me of?

Quote:


I do defend their right to do so. Hence my question about whether the "Muslim leaders" encouraged them to self censor. I would much prefer to have Muslims proclaiming their intolerance for all to see than trying to mask it at every opportunity, like with your constant attempts to change the topic from freedom to violence.

Quote:


If they threaten violence (eg the beheading placards) then it undermines free speech - even more so thanfor other groups because when Muslims threaten to kill people in situations like this, they are not joking. If they call for the criminalisation of blasphemy that undermines freedom of speech. On the other hand if they just want to let people know they are pissed off, that is fine. They can mingle peacefully with the anti-Muslim crowd carrying posters of Muhammed and the little girl and the flies. Again, the violence itself is pretty much irrelevant, except to the extent that it reinforces a threat against people.

Quote:


So it's OK for people to have their freedom of speech denied, so long as only a tiny minority are causing it to be denied?

Quote:


Because the threat was dealt with a long time ago. By Christians. Now we are dealing with the dame threat from Muslims, because the Muslims cannot deal with it themselves and are exporting their problems to every corner of the globe. It is like a wormhole through which thousands of neanderthals are flooding into the 21st century.

Quote:


Do you think it is an attack on freedom of speech if Muslims protest with signs calling for the beheading of anyone who insults the prophet?

Quote:


That's a shame. Self censorship is the worst possible response to this sort of intimidation.

Quote:


Chimp will have to revise his "statistics".

Quote:


In my opinion they were defending freedom of speech using the most appropriate method available - by exercising it - and until Muslims decide to become more civilised there should be more of it. There is nothing inherent in the cartoons themselves that is a problem. People do the same thing to other religions all the time. The only problem was the response, which was a global campaign of mass murder.

Quote:


OK then, let's play your little game of judging Muslims by the press releases of mainstream Muslim organisations. How many such organisations responded to the Sydney protests by standing up for people's right to mock Muhammed?

Quote:


I took them at their word. You called it baseless and absurd. And your are still sprouting the same misleading propaganda about wanting peace being the same thing as wanting freedom and democracy. You change the topic with every single post, because you know that mainstream Muslims do not measure up to the standards you are falsely attributing to them here.

Quote:


Muslims oppose freedom and want it to be taken away. That is sinister, whether they do it violently or peacefully. Right from the opening post I outlined that they are using both methods quite openly (and quite effectively, to the point where the mainstream Australian media was too scared to report on the basics of what happened). All you have done in response is change the topic to Muslims wanting a fairy tale of everyone living happily ever after.

Quote:


Again, you change the topic. Is your only purpose here to constantly sprout meaningless Islamic propaganda? And you wonder why people are so skeptical about everything Muslims say on the issue.

Quote:


You tell me Gandalf. Do they want to protect people's right to mock Muhammed? Think about this question carefully now. I am not asking you whether they beat anyone up. Hopefully some time in the next 10 pages you will acknowledge the difference.

Sorry to interrupt the flow, but isn't this just beautiful... ?

Quote:


source

Actually, EVERYBODY knows why 'he' did it.

It's only the LEFT who have their thumb in the dyke to stop the leak that might turn into a deluge of Truth about Islam.

Quote:


I have never claimed Muslims should not be able to protest. However even if they had been peaceful the Sydney protests would still have been a vulgar attack on freedom of speech, due to the threats they were marching behind. Pointing this out does not undermine freedom of speech in any way and is not the same thing as saying that Muslims should not be allowed to protest. Like I said, it is far better that Muslims make their opposition to freedom of speech obvious than to self censor in the interests of a more "calculated" move.

Quote:


It is not a hidden agenda. It was stated fairly clearly in the evidence you presented. It was stated pretty clearly by Abu and many other Muslims.

Quote:


Why else would the Australian media have refrained from reporting fully on what was a very newsworthy event? Muslims kill journalists. That is the pointy end of the campaign. Given the violence in Sydney and outright threats, over something that happened on the other side of the world, the threat of further violence against media outlets or against the Australian public in general was very real. The Australian media was forced to self censor because of the violence and lack of self control of Muslims.

Quote:


No they don't Gandalf. Like I already pointed out, opposing violence is not the same thing as defending freedom of speech and it is deceptive of you to continually equate the two and insist we should interpret Muslims opposing violence as Muslims defending freedom of speech, when they quite clearly oppose it.

Quote:


How many times do I have to point out that this is the opposite of what I want for it to cease to be obvious? How can I make it any clearer for you?

Quote:


It is not self righteous at all. It is a fundamental principle of defending freedom and human rights and has been stated in various ways in many famous speeches and phrases that are so well known that many people can rattle them off almost verbatim.

Why else would the Australian media have refrained from reporting fully on what was a very newsworthy event?