'Innocence of Muslims' outrage?

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by Anonymous, Sep 14, 2012.

  1. Cyber Null Member

    Ok, I will say what I think in general about whole this situation and a bit of religion. The main problem started with movie from some guy (it's important to understand that it's one man not whole nation). Basicly, he expresed something he think about your religion. Understand that EVERYONE have the right to think and say what he think about anything everywhere. It's crime not alowing someone to speak. If you kill ambassador that doesen't change anything. You just show a bad picture of your people in the world. It's not fight for good purpose, it'a a bad one. I will not talk about christians or muslims at all. Everyone have the right to believe by his choise. A violence is not good in any way. Once more let's look example:

    -I kill muslim (example)
    -Should every single muslim hate my nation for my own act?
    -So I am nation? I represent every man in my country?

    That's how you react on movie. Like all americans are guilty. I am not american.

    Sry for my bad english, I am learning.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Anonymous Member

    It's a question of someone holding something inviolably sacred, and respect toward that concept, if not necessarily the object.
  3. Cyber Null Member

    It's a question is a religion you believe or anyone believe the right one? Theere is no clues. So, it's a believe and everyone can say opinion.
  4. Anonymous Member

    If you were a Satanist and your family were orthodox Roman Catholic, would wear the inverted Crucifix/symbol of Baphomet in their presence, assuming they knew the symbolism of those artefacts?
  5. Anonymous Member

    View attachment 2012-10-09T123248Z_2088276679_GM1E8A91ICI01_RTRMAD
    Enlarge PhotoReuters/REUTERS - Hospital staff assist Malala Yousufzai, a 14-year-old schoolgirl who was wounded in a gun attack, at Saidu Sharif Teaching Hospital in the Swat Valley region in northwest Pakistan October

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - Taliban gunmen in Pakistan shot and seriously wounded on Tuesday a 14-year-old schoolgirl who rose to fame for speaking out against the militants, authorities said.
    Malala Yousufzai was shot in the head and neck when gunmen fired on her school bus in the Swat valley, northwest of the capital, Islamabad. Two other girls were also wounded, police said.
    Yousufzai became famous for speaking out against the Pakistani Taliban at a time when even the government seemed to be appeasing the hardline Islamists.
    The government agreed to a ceasefire with the Taliban in Swat in early 2009, effectively recognizing insurgent control of the valley whose lakes and mountains had long been a tourist attraction.
    The Taliban set up courts, executed residents and closed girls' schools, including the one that Yousufzai attended. A documentary team filmed her weeping as she explained her ambition to be a doctor.
    &quot;My friend came to me and said, 'for God's sake, answer me honestly, is our school going to be attacked by the Taliban?',&quot; Yousufzai, then 11, wrote in a blog published by the BBC.
    &quot;During the morning assembly we were told not to wear colorful clothes as the Taliban would object.&quot;
    The army launched an offensive and retook control of Swat later that year, and Yousufzai later received the country's highest civilian award. She was also nominated for international awards for child activists.
    Since then, she has received numerous threats. On Tuesday, gunmen arrived at her school and asked for her by name, witnesses told police. Yousufzai was shot when she came out of class and went to a bus.
    Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said his group was behind the shooting.
    &quot;She was pro-West, she was speaking against Taliban and she was calling President Obama her ideal leader,&quot; Ehsan said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
    &quot;She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas,&quot; he said, referring the main ethnic group in northwest Pakistan and southern and eastern Afghanistan. Most members of the Taliban come from conservative Pashtun tribes.
    Doctors were struggling to save Yousufzai, said Lal Noor, a doctor at the Saidu Sharif Teaching Hospital in the Swat valley's main town of Mingora.
    (Fixes translation in paragraph 11 to &quot;ideal leader&quot;)
    (Writing by Katharine Houreld; Editing by Robert Birsel)
  6. Cyber Null Member

    I am not religious, so don't really know what are you talking about. My point is you all talk about some god. But there is no proof for it so why you fight against each other. If I say i hate Alah which is false since i don't belive in any god, why would you are about it? Or if I say all muslims are terorists, why would you care about my opinion. If you know what is real, why you care what others think. Let them live in lies. Once more, I don't hate mualims, if you think that for some reason. You are probably kind people. Not all of course. :)
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Cyber Null Member

  8. Anonymous Member

    Would the family express their religious beliefs that contradict yours in your presence?
  9. Anonymous Member

    Morally bankrupt "religion". Suited only for a tribal culture.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. I agree. Islam is a morally bankrupt religion, just like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (which formed the foundation of much of modern Christianity, mainly the very strong strain of dualism in it), Sikhism, and every other major religion, as they are all based on primitive lies and mindless superstition. If I were to join a faith, I would probably become a Bokononist or a Pastafarian.
  11. Anonymous Member

    Your culture is obviously better.
    Still fucking yer sister?
  13. Anonymous Member

    When Everything You Know Is Not True
    Miko Peled Debunking Jewish Myths




    Video Posted October 13, 2012

    • Like Like x 1
  14. Anonymous Member
    Six days in Israel, 45 years ago

    My Israeli general father knew the 1967 war was an opportunity for peace.
    June 06, 2012|By Miko Peled
    • [IMG]
    Israelis stand on the Mount of Olives overlooking the old city of Jerusalem. (Kahana Menahem / AFP / Getty…)
    In early June 1967, as I cowered with my mother and sisters in the &quot;safest&quot; room of our house near Jerusalem — the downstairs bathroom — we feared the worst. None of us imagined that the war that had just begun would end in six days. It was inconceivable that the Israeli army would destroy three Arab armies, kill upward of 15,000 Arab soldiers (at a cost of 700 Israeli casualties), triple the size of the state of Israel and, for the first time in two millenniums, give the Jewish people control over the entire land of Israel, including the crown jewel, the Old City of Jerusalem.
    Many believe now, as they believed then, that Israel was forced to initiate a preemptive strike in 1967 because it faced an existential threat from Arab armies that were ready — and intending — to destroy it. As it happens, my father, Gen. Matti Peled, who was the Israel Defense Forces' chief of logistics at the time, was one of the few who knew that was not so. In an article published six years later in the Israeli newspaper Maariv, he wrote of Egypt's president, who commanded the biggest of the Arab armies: &quot;I was surprised that Nasser decided to place his troops so close to our border because this allowed us to strike and destroy them at any time we wished to do so, and there was not a single knowledgeable person who did not see that. From a military standpoint, it was not the IDF that was in danger when the Egyptian army amassed troops on the Israeli border, but the Egyptian army.&quot; In interviews over the years, other generals who served at that time confirmed this, including Ariel Sharon and Ezer Weitzman.
    In 1967, as today, the two power centers in Israel were the IDF high command and the Cabinet. On June 2, 1967, the two groups met at IDF headquarters. The military hosts greeted the generally cautious and dovish prime minister, Levi Eshkol, with such a level of belligerence that the meeting was later commonly called &quot;the Generals' Coup.&quot;
    The transcripts of that meeting, which I found in the Israeli army archives, reveal that the generals made it clear to Eshkol that the Egyptians would need 18 months to two years before they would be ready for a full-scale war, and therefore this was the time for a preemptive strike. My father told Eshkol: &quot;Nasser is advancing an ill-prepared army because he is counting on the Cabinet being hesitant. Your hesitation is working in his advantage.&quot; The prime minister parried this criticism, saying, &quot;The Cabinet must also think of the wives and mothers who will become bereaved.&quot;
    Throughout the meeting, there was no mention of a threat but rather of an &quot;opportunity&quot; that was there, to be seized.
    Within short order, the Cabinet succumbed to the pressure of the army, and the rest, as they say, is history. The Six-Day War began three days later and was over on June 10, 1967. When the guns fell silent, one general saw yet another opportunity, one that would take most of Israel's other leaders some decades to recognize. This was my father. A 1995 newspaper profile reconstructed the first weekly meeting that the IDF general staff held after the war. When it came his turn to speak, my father said: &quot;For the first time in Israel's history, we have an opportunity to solve the Palestinian problem once and for all. Now we are face to face with the Palestinians, without other Arab countries dividing us. Now we have a chance to offer the Palestinians a state of their own.&quot;
    His position was well known. He argued in 1969 that holding on to the territory gained in the war was contrary to Israel's interests: &quot;If we keep these lands, popular resistance to the occupation is sure to arise, and Israel's army will be used to quell that resistance, with disastrous and demoralizing results.&quot; Over the years, he argued repeatedly that Israeli control in the West Bank and Gaza would turn the Jewish state into an increasingly brutal occupying power (he was right) and could eventually result in a binational state (he may yet be right, as events are moving in this direction). Allowing the Palestinians an independent state of their own, he maintained, would lead to stability and calm.
    For 45 years, successive Israeli governments have invested billions of dollars in making the 1967 conquests irreversible, and they have eliminated any chance for the two-state solution to become a reality. Cities, highways, malls and factories have been built in the West Bank in order to settle Jewish Israelis there, while a reign of terror was put in place to govern the Palestinians whose lands were being taken. From denying access to water and land and obstructing free travel, through a maze of discriminatory laws and restrictions, to full-on military assaults, Israel has dedicated huge resources to the oppression and persecution of the Palestinians.
    Miko Peled is an Israeli activist living in San Diego and the author of the recently published book, &quot;The General's Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine.&quot;
  15. UKIP isn't the same as the BNP.

    Sure you're not getting confused again?
  16. The Wrong Guy Member

    'Innocence of Muslims' Actress Takes Second Swing at Blocking Film |

    Cindy Lee Garcia, one of the stars of the controversial film "Innocence of Muslims", is renewing her battle to get it yanked off YouTube, just as the movie stands to become a critical issue in the Presidential election.

    Garcia filed a request for a temporary restraining order in federal court on Wednesday -- and in the documents she says she "never signed a release of any kind to her rights to her dramatic performance." She's basically saying the filmmakers have no right to show her in the movie.

    Garcia also claims she's received "gruesome, credible death threats" since the movie came out, and her filing includes an Egyptian cleric's fatwa, calling for Muslims to "kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film."

    "Innocence of Muslims" -- and the Middle Eastern violence that erupted after its release -- is certain to be front and center during Monday night's Presidential debate which focuses on foreign policy.

    Garcia previously requested a TRO in a California state court that would force Google and YouTube to remove the film, but a judge rejected it last month.

  17. The Wrong Guy Member

    Mark Basseley Youssef, "Innocence Of Muslims" Producer, Sentenced To Year In Prison






    More at
  18. mongrel Member

    The latest news from the Religion of Peace™:Egyptian Christians sentenced to death for anti-Islam film

    "If you insult us... you must die"

    Am I the only one who vomits when they hear that ridiculous "Islam is a religion of peace" crap? Seriously, don't we have enough evidence to show that it isn't?!?!?
  19. Indeed. It's a foolish claim. Its not a religion of peace, either in theory or in practise.
  20. Anonymous Member

    OK... so?

    Anwar al-Awlaki insulted the US religion and was killed.
    Same for his 16-year-old son.

    Pot... kettle... nigger
  21. Anonymous Member

  22. Anonymous Member

    Which officials, and with what evidence?

    BTW, al-Qaeda was created by the US during the Russian-attempted occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1970s. According to some official sources, al-Qaeda takes orders/acts at the behest of the US State Department/CIA/DIA. (Hey, my sources are as valid as yours).

    Also: there is not one thing wrong with opposing the official US state religion ("Sole Superpowerism").
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

    What sources?
  24. Anonymous Member

    My point is: Wikipedia, the source anyone can edit, is as valid as my assertions. I can document them, if you like; but, they're likewise in the public domain.
  25. Archer Member

    We have plenty of evidence to show that people are violent cunts. Blaming this on religion is like blaming street gangs on Grand theft auto.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Insulting the Prophet Muhammad is like insulting the mothers of all Muslims, so don't be surprised at a violent reaction from them.

    inb4 film is a CIA/Mossad op
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    Right. But that doesn't mean we stand by and do nothing. When violence is caused by religion, Grand Theft Auto, Death Metal, or weather it should be dissected.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  28. Anonymous Member

    No it's not. Get over yourself, you're not that holy.
  29. Anonymous Member

    No, violence is caused by people. The excuse/justification is secondary.
    The question is, in this case, why is this particularly vulnerability being exploited?
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    Actually, to them, it IS like that, whether you care for it or not.
    Lurk moar.
  31. Anonymous Member

    The texts of the religion - the Quran and the words and deeds of Muhmmad - specifically command using threats and violence.

    Of course, no one should follow those commands.

    But, it's quite perverse to exonerate the text for the violence that comes from following the text.
  32. Anonymous Member

    OK, I'll bite... DOX or STFU.
  33. Anonymous Member

    The Docs are voluminous.

    Try the Quran.

    The Quran instructs to kill non-Muslims who do not submit to Islamic rule, to crucify those who oppose islam, to beat wives feared to be disobedient, to amputate hands etc.

    Quran 9:5

    Quran 9:29

    Quran 5:33

    Quran 4:34

    Or try Muhammad, whom Muslims are obliged to emulate as the perfect man

    Al-Bukhari (number 6922)

    Muhammad had numerous people killed on the basis that they mocked him.

    All these things are central texts of Islam, and taken to be the eternal command of Allah, by orthodox Muslims.

    See the type of laws instituted by orthodox clerics based on the words of Quran and Muhammad, in Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Read a codification of Sharia, such as "Reliance of the Traveller".

    So, when Muslims
    1. bash disobedient wives
    2. kill blasphemers
    3. kill apostates
    4. kill atheists
    5. demand that Christians and Jews submit to their demands
    6. amputate the hands of theives
    7. allow inferior status for women and non-muslims
    they have good scriptural justification - these things are commanded by God and Muhammad.
  34. Archer Member

    I could find similar out of context quotes in any other religious book. Assuming that all followers or even a majority of followers actually apply those violent instructions is rather silly.

    Besides, the very reason you cannot portray muhamad is because muslims don't want to put him on a pedestal, one of the main focal points of the quran you see is that the message itself is more important than the prophet, and that the prophet should not be worshiped. So your assumption that they have to emulate him as the perfect man shows your ignorance of the subject.

    Sharia law is an INTERPRETATION of the quran by religious scholars, in fact muslim scholars are constantly at odds with each other over different interpretation of it, pretty much like the christian world.

    Go read a book and let's talk some more.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Thank you... Talmud, for comparison?
  36. It is completely orthodox Islam, commanded in the Quran that Muhammad is the model for human conduct.

    It is ludicrous that you call orthodox classical islamic theology 'out of context' - tell the clerics in the mosques if ypu think so.
    You don't know much about islam.That's nothing to be ashamed
    But you should be ashamed of pretending to know what you don't know.
  37. To blithely assert that the commands of allah, in the quran, interpreted by the devout scholars of islam, and Muhammad himself in carrying out violence is out of context is like asserting criticising the church of scientology based on hubbards commands and the deeds of the church is out of context.

    And no, not all religious books contain commands from god to kill apostates.

    And if any others do so, that takes nothing away from the fact that islam does.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Fine. Now man up, accept it, and move on.
  39. Archer Member

    Please, instead of talking out of your ass, show me evidence of your claims.
  40. We should not be upset that some dipshit committed fraud and, in doing so, angered a bunch of Muslims. We should be upset that his movie sucked and that people were hurt by his con. And on Terry Jones, while he has been tried in absentia, we should hope for his continued health, not because he matters, but because the only thing worse than him being an asshole would be him becoming a "martyred" asshole.

    To the far right Islamic extremists, don't feed the fucking troll! Ignore him. He doesn't matter, he's boring, and he doesn't represent the vast majority of us who either don't know who he is, or, if we do know about him, do not support his stupidity.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors



Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins