# Shooting at Muhammad exhibit in Dallas



## Kagekatsu (May 4, 2015)

> Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
> By Kevin Conlon and Kristina Sgueglia, CNN
> Updated 12:02 AM ET, Mon May 4, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## hammer (May 4, 2015)

if only everyone had a fun then the security guard wouldn't have got shot


----------



## Blue (May 4, 2015)

>Trying this shit in America
>Trying this shit in _Texas_

Get fucked


----------



## ExoSkel (May 4, 2015)

Contest winner's drawing:


----------



## Blue (May 4, 2015)

Not bad/10, needs to work on his fingers tho


----------



## Linkdarkside (May 4, 2015)

America is not France,Texas is not Paris.


----------



## scerpers (May 4, 2015)

mudslimes trying this shit in texas get murked


----------



## ExoSkel (May 4, 2015)

They chose the wrong fucking state to attempt their little jihad.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

*2 suspects dead after gunfire outside Mohammed cartoon exhibit*



> GARLAND, Texas ? Two suspects were killed after they opened fire Sunday in a parking lot outside a provocative contest for cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed, authorities said.
> 
> Garland's city government issued a statement saying that as a Muhammad Art Exhibit event was coming to a close at the Curtis Culwell Center, "two males drove up to the front of the building in a car'' and started shooting at a security officer.
> 
> ...





These people are dicks, but you can't just shoot them for it.


----------



## Overwatch (May 4, 2015)

Ain't gonna mus no more.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 4, 2015)

Lol America. When are you gonna ban guns?


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (May 4, 2015)

Well, the first mistake for those idiots was shooting in front of armed security so of course back up will come quickly.

While in France, those fuckers were mainly attacking civilians thus back up came but took a little bit longer.

But good thing those gunmen are dead!


----------



## Saishin (May 4, 2015)

Je suis Texan


----------



## Lina Inverse (May 4, 2015)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Well, the first mistake for those idiots was shooting in front of armed security so of course back up will come quickly.
> 
> While in France, those fuckers were mainly attacking civilians thus back up came but took a little bit longer.
> 
> But good thing those gunmen are dead!



no their first mistake was thinking this shit is gonna fly in texas of all places


----------



## C-Moon (May 4, 2015)

Lina Inverse said:


> no their first mistake was thinking this shit is gonna fly in texas of all places



Natural Selection at work


----------



## Megaharrison (May 4, 2015)

Butthurt Muslims try their shit in Texas

Get BTFO'd

More at 11.


----------



## Yahiko (May 4, 2015)

So who starts this shit in the first place.  Muslims?


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (May 4, 2015)

Seems oddly relevant.


----------



## Alita (May 4, 2015)

They didn't have to kill them...jeez.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 4, 2015)

> "Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest"



Seriously? Pathetic , just pathetic.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 4, 2015)

Here comes Sherlock to the Jihadi's defense once again


----------



## baconbits (May 4, 2015)

Alita54 said:


> They didn't have to kill them...jeez.



Are you serious?


----------



## Sherlōck (May 4, 2015)

Here comes Mega with his idiotic remarks once again.


----------



## WT (May 4, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> Seriously? Pathetic , just pathetic.



agreed. 

Its pretty obvious what's really going on here.

One has to ask if these are truly events for "freedom of speech" or just an opportunity for haters to bash Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech".


----------



## Blue (May 4, 2015)

WT said:


> agreed.
> 
> Its pretty obvious what's really going on here.
> 
> One has to ask if these are truly events for "freedom of speech" or just an opportunity for haters to bash Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech".



When you refer to haters bashing islam

are you talking about the cartoonists

or the homicidal maniacs trying to commit mass murder in the name of Islam?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 4, 2015)

WT said:


> agreed.
> 
> Its pretty obvious what's really going on here.
> 
> One has to ask if these are truly events for "freedom of speech" or just an opportunity for haters to bash Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech".



People have been bashing religion, races, sexes, ethnic groups, nations, politicians, athletes, etc. since the fucking inception of this country.

Stay mad


----------



## Yahiko (May 4, 2015)

Blue said:


> When you refer to haters bashing islam
> 
> are you talking about the cartoonists
> 
> or the homicidal maniacs trying to commit mass murder in the name of Islam?



Both of them are same


----------



## Buskuv (May 4, 2015)

WAD said:


> People have been bashing religion, races, sexes, ethnic groups, nations, politicians, athletes, etc. since the fucking inception of this country.
> 
> Stay mad



Christians have been at the whipping post for decades, and Jesus has been depicted in homosexual acts, violent acts, covered in piss, shit, made of shit, made of garbage, parodied, mocked and generally defaced in public art exhibits for years.



These fellas gettin' their wires in a twist over cartoons.


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (May 4, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> Both of them are same



one group draws shitty cartoons and the other group.........well.... you know what they do.


----------



## Yahiko (May 4, 2015)

Destroyer of Kittens said:


> one group draws shitty cartoons and the other group.........well.... you know what they do.


doesn't matter,  both of them are an insult to islam


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> Seriously? Pathetic , just pathetic.



That's the pathetic part?


----------



## Sherlōck (May 4, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's the pathetic part?



That's part of it,yeah.


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 4, 2015)

HAHAHAHAHA

Fucking retards.

May have actually killed some people if it was a state with heavy gun control, but in Texas? They'd be lucky if they lasted .5 seconds before they were mowed down by a storm of bullets from every other person at that event. Everyone in Texas has a gun. What morons these terrorists are.


----------



## Parallax (May 4, 2015)

man, i lol'ed i ain't even gonna lie.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> That's part of it,yeah.



I think there assholes. But they didn't shoot anyone.


----------



## Krory (May 4, 2015)

Christ, if you every dysfunctional scumbag went shooting people who made them cry, CTK would've destroyed this entire section.


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 4, 2015)

I mean, they'd have to have an IQ of a banana to think they'd survive trying this in texas.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 4, 2015)

The lack of self-awareness of the attackers astounds me.

Congratulations, you proved their point and did more harm to your own cause then they could ever do!


----------



## baconbits (May 4, 2015)

WT said:


> agreed.
> 
> Its pretty obvious what's really going on here.
> 
> One has to ask if these are truly events for "freedom of speech" or just an opportunity for haters to bash Islam under the guise of "freedom of speech".



The whole point of free speech is that you can bash anyone you want.



krory said:


> Christ, if you every dysfunctional scumbag went shooting people who made them cry, CTK would've destroyed this entire section.



Bro, you're cool but you gotta limit this obsession.  One CTK post every two days.  Let's start slow.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 4, 2015)

- Seems like a lone wolves operation, and the Muslim community of Dallas apparently steered clear of this event despite the obvious baiting/taunting, which is commendable on their part (they didn't even protest, and EVERYBODY protests events that offend them, so that is commendable to say the least and worthy of respect)

- Shooters deserved to die, any bleeding heart ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) that thinks otherwise can go teabag a mousetrap, this isn't a videogame, real lives are at stake and the shooters surrender theirs the moment they put others' at stake

- While "disrespectful", events like these wouldn't happen if the widespread outrage and, to a lesser extent, violence that comes out of this particular topic of free speech didn't exist in the first place.  It's not simply about a bunch of pretentious shit-starters having a wank over disrespecting Muhammad because they get high off mad Muslims, it's a political statement in the name of free speech.  Seeing as how animosity toward Muhammad drawings have caused political apologies and scared businesses and people into surrendering their rights to appease the beliefs of others, events like these are demonstrations against political correctness and for creative freedom.


----------



## SLB (May 4, 2015)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> Christians have been at the whipping post for decades, and Jesus has been depicted in homosexual acts, violent acts, covered in piss, shit, made of shit, made of garbage, parodied, mocked and generally defaced in public art exhibits for years.
> 
> 
> 
> These fellas gettin' their wires in a twist over cartoons.



in hindsight, the overreaction to depictions of the prophets is pretty illogical.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 4, 2015)

Moody said:


> in hindsight, the overreaction to depictions of the prophets is pretty illogical.



hindsight was never needed to conclude this, just common sense


----------



## Zyrax (May 4, 2015)

Ultra retards
I am talking about everyone here Excluding The Cops
One is a jackass who doing things for attention and one overreacted like a dumbass.


----------



## SLB (May 4, 2015)

i meant from a more personal standpoint as i kind of resonated with the idea that important religious figures were sacred not too long ago.

and that isn't just encompassing to the violent outbursts. even the more mundane hostility that gets people riled up. isn't even remotely worth engaging in considering what a losing battle it is to begin with.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 4, 2015)

baconbits said:


> The whole point of free speech is that you can bash anyone you want.


The problem for Islam is that as the civilized response to trolling being counter trolling, i.e. making cartoons mocking Jesus, is a double edged sword since they view him as a prophet as well.


----------



## Atem (May 4, 2015)

Alita54 said:


> They didn't have to kill them...jeez.



It's their own damn fault.

They started shooting up the place to begin with. If you're not prepared to get shot don't go around shooting people like a maniac.


----------



## Mider T (May 4, 2015)

Both parties are stupid.  Obvious bait is obvious (and in bad taste) but these Muslims make the religion look bad with shit like this.



~Greed~ said:


> I mean, they'd have to have an IQ of a banana to think they'd survive trying this in texas.



lol b&


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 4, 2015)

Mider T said:


> lol b&



I actually wasn't baiting you .

In hindsight, probably should have expected this and chosen a different fruit .


----------



## Atem (May 4, 2015)

I wouldn't call people who are simply defending themselves against trigger happy sociopaths stupid. 

This is Texas anyway. If you're over fourteen years old and don't have a gun something is seriously wrong.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

These people deserve to die for trying to shoot others. This wasn't a one case of one side abusing another.


----------



## Blue (May 4, 2015)

"Oh Texas you're so mean stop bullying the poor homicidal islamist scum, they only wanted to murder a few innocent people in the name of religion Q__Q"




G E T F U C K E D
E
T
F
U
C
K
E
D E K C U F T E G


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 4, 2015)

Rytlock Brimstone said:


> I wouldn't call people who are simply defending themselves against trigger happy sociopaths stupid.
> 
> This is Texas anyway. If you're over fourteen years old and don't have a gun something is seriously wrong.



I hope your not replying to my post? I was calling the terrorists stupid, not the texans.


----------



## Saishin (May 4, 2015)

> *Danish editor slams US 'political correctness'*
> 
> The Danish editor who commissioned the Mohammed cartoons that triggered deadly protests a decade ago said Monday the failed attack on a Texas cartoon exhibition won't change how "politically correct" Americans feel about the drawings.
> 
> ...


----------



## SLB (May 4, 2015)

Blue said:


> "Oh Texas you're so mean stop bullying the poor homicidal islamist scum, they only wanted to murder a few innocent people in the name of religion Q__Q"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol, might want to wait for an actual opposition to form there, blue

from what i can gather it's just WT


----------



## Zyrax (May 4, 2015)

Appearantly One of them was a terror suspect well known to the FBI


----------



## Griever (May 4, 2015)

I laughed. They made a nice kill zone and the extremists walked right in. 

lets all go get a tattoo of the lone star to celebrate


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

Griever said:


> I laughed. They made a nice kill zone and the extremists walked right in.
> 
> lets all go get a tattoo of the lone star to celebrate



I'm going to go home and crack open a shined and toast to the stupidity of trying to shoot trigger happy rednecks.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Kind of was an Evil vs Evil thing here. On one side we have Islamic Terrorists, on the other side we have a confirmed *HATE GROUP*. Honestly wish they kind of took out each other.

After all, Pamela fucking Gellar was there.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (May 4, 2015)

Yay another Muslim hate event. I sure foresee a great future for Muslims like me in the US.


----------



## Blue (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Kind of was an Evil vs Evil thing here. On one side we have Islamic Terrorists, on the other side we have a confirmed *HATE GROUP*. Honestly wish they kind of took out each other.
> 
> After all, Pamela fucking Gellar was there.



You should probably kill yourself

Even if what you say is true, and it's mostly not, hate groups that fight with cartoons are not comparable to hate groups that fight with assault rifles


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Blue said:


> You should probably kill yourself
> 
> Even if what you say is true, and it's mostly not, hate groups that fight with cartoons are not comparable to hate groups that fight with assault rifles


Blue, Hate Groups should not be tolerated at all. Southern Poverty Law Center confirmed that the group in Dallas doing this event was a hate group. 

Instead of blindly supporting people like this, look deeper.


----------



## Zyrax (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Blue, Hate Groups should not be tolerated at all. Southern Poverty Law Center confirmed that the group in Dallas doing this event was a hate group.
> 
> Instead of blindly supporting people like this, look deeper.


              .


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Again, Evil vs Evil. This wasn't an event artists made to support free speech. This wasn't an event that Muslims in America supported. This was an event solely by anti-Muslim bigots hoping to harass the Muslims in the city.


----------



## SLB (May 4, 2015)

so what? you can't say shit like "i wish they took each other out" because you're saying this somehow deserves death.


----------



## Krory (May 4, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> Yay another Muslim hate event. I sure foresee a great future for Muslims like me in the US.



Maybe Muslims like you should stop trying to shoot or blow up everyone that disagrees with their outdated cult.


----------



## Zyrax (May 4, 2015)

How is America being Islamified? Theres a way higher chance of America being   Shenified due to the fact that Theres a mass Chinese immigration to America going on. 
Fear Mongerers gonna fear monger I guess


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Moody said:


> so what? you can't say shit like "i wish they took each other out" because you're saying this somehow deserves death.


Kind of see Hate Groups with the same face as Westboro Baptist Church. 

I was a bit too extreme, but come on, it is still kind of a Evil vs Evil scenario.


----------



## Griever (May 4, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> Yay another Muslim hate event. I sure foresee a great future for Muslims like me in the US.



With Hostilities as they are. this kinda thing, well it just comes with it. as for me i don't have any problem with the vast majority of Muslims in the US, most of them conform well and understand they are in the US and not the middle east. and that is good enough.

I do believe people should be able to handle this level of baiting though. and i have no sympathy for those who can't. it show their weak character and thus i have zero respect for them.


----------



## N120 (May 4, 2015)

Supersaiyanman, why do I agree with you? I can't remember the last time i did. 

Personally I Condemn both, I have my principles and I'll stick to them. I don't support the cartoonist or their movement, f' that. I don't support violent extremism either.


----------



## Buskuv (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Again, Evil vs Evil. This wasn't an event artists made to support free speech. This wasn't an event that Muslims in America supported. This was an event solely by anti-Muslim bigots hoping to harass the Muslims in the city.



People being ignorant dickheads, even if it's racial / religious bigotry, doesn't even remotely fall in the same fucking ballpark of 'evil' as people who _commit murder in retaliation for drawing cartoons.

_


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> People being ignorant dickheads, even if it's racial / religious bigotry, doesn't even remotely fall in the same fucking ballpark of 'evil' as people who _commit murder in retaliation for drawing cartoons.
> 
> _


I did say what I said was a bit too extreme, but it still was an Evil vs Evil scenario. Again, a hate group organized it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

Hate groups are horrible, but I wouldn't be happy that someone busted in on a Klan rally and started gunning people down for what they believe. 

One of these is clearly the more extreme case and the fact that the other even comes up in comparison is silly.


----------



## Succubus (May 4, 2015)

It's feel like deja vu all over again


----------



## Krory (May 4, 2015)

You guys should really be embarrassed that CTK is more reasonable than most of you. I mean, this is the self-proclaimed feminist calls a woman a "cunt" and makes rape jokes if she disagrees.


----------



## Atem (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I did say what I said was a bit too extreme, but it still was an Evil vs Evil scenario. Again, a hate group organized it.



I think you're too quick to apply the evil label to a bunch of people who are just racist. Despite what you think that doesn't automatically make them evil. 

My old man is an ignorant fuck but he's never actually hurt someone in his life. The only thing he has ever done is talk shit. Yet, by your logic it would be okay if he dies because talking shit is just so unforgivable a crime it deserves death.


----------



## Buskuv (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I did say what I said was a bit too extreme, but it still was an Evil vs Evil scenario. Again, a hate group organized it.



_A bit too extreme _sounds like they threw rotten eggs at the group of people.

So, no, their reaction a lot too extreme.


----------



## N120 (May 4, 2015)

Rytlock Brimstone said:


> I think you're took quick to apply the evil label to a bunch of people who are just racist. Despite what you think that doesn't automatically make them evil.
> 
> My old man is an ignorant fuck but he's never actually hurt someone in his life. The only thing he has ever done is talk shit. Yet, by your logic it would be okay if he dies because talking shit is just so unforgivable a crime it deserves death.



I don't think he was condoning either action. When you oppose something, generally you don't want to see it acted out.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Kind of was an Evil vs Evil thing here. On one side we have Islamic Terrorists, on the other side we have a confirmed *HATE GROUP*. Honestly wish they kind of took out each other.
> 
> After all, Pamela fucking Gellar was there.



oh shut the fuck up, that "hate group" has a right to espouse anti islamic beliefs just as much as they have a right to draw pictures depicting a historical figure in a negative light

one party is both abiding by the law and physically hurting nobody, while the other is breaking the law and deliberately targeting lives; if you don't understand the difference you're devoid of common sense



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Blue, Hate Groups should not be tolerated at all. Southern Poverty Law Center confirmed that the group in Dallas doing this event was a hate group.
> 
> Instead of blindly supporting people like this, look deeper.


it's not about supporting their message/beliefs, it's about supporting their right to free speech 

get out


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

afgpride said:


> oh shut the fuck up, that "hate group" has a right to espouse anti islamic beliefs just as much as they have a right to draw pictures depicting a historical figure in a negative light
> 
> one party is both abiding by the law and physically hurting nobody, while the other is breaking the law and deliberately targeting lives; if you don't understand the difference you're devoid of common sense


Yes, they have a right to do it. Would have more support if it wasn't a Far-Right Hate Group (not my words, Southern Poverty Law Center) who organized it, instead being artists, cartoonists, etc. who were doing it to show pure Free Speech.


----------



## Atem (May 4, 2015)

N120 said:


> I don't think he was condoning either action.



Not at all what I was talking about.

I was referring to how SSM12 specifically stated he would have liked it if they took each other out, and that he's treating a bunch of ignorant fucks as if they're irredeemable fiends deserving of death. 

"Oh, I made some offensive and provocative drawings. Look at me!" In contrast to "those bastards are mocking our religion lets butcher them like pigs."

One is being an asshole. The other is being a fucking murderer. 



> When you oppose something, generally you don't want to see it acted out.



It's okay to murder them then? Just so you can silence them. You just can't handle their rhetoric so you got to just kill them in cold blood.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Yes, they have a right to do it. Would have more support if it wasn't a Far-Right Hate Group (not my words, Southern Poverty Law Center) who organized it, instead being artists, cartoonists, etc. who were doing it to show pure Free Speech.



that doesn't matter, just like the westboro baptist church being a bunch of hate filled simpletons wouldn't legitimize them getting shot at during one of their demonstrations 

you don't get to make apples and oranges out of legal, non-physical harm and illegal, physical harm


----------



## N120 (May 4, 2015)

Rytlock Brimstone said:


> Not at all what I was talking about.
> 
> I was referring to how SSM12 specifically stated he would have liked it if they took each other out, and that he's treating a bunch of ignorant fucks as if they're irredeemable fiends deserving of death.
> 
> ...



Nah, I agree there is a difference between bigotry and murder. But I don't think he supported either, well that's at least how I interpreted it.

Regardless, I think it's an extreme response to say he condones harm against your old man or anyone else by what he said. Probably worded it wrong. Or maybe I misunderstood his position and thus find myself in agreement with him.

In anycase, my views are clear. 

The govt goes out of its way to control hate speech and peddles this conveyor belt theory. It seems it's easier to clamp down on Muslims orgs for hate speech because it could lead to potential danger, but it's free speech when bigots go parading banners, fearmongering and provoking a community, some of which has also lead to more extreme actions by some of it sympathisers into physical attack on people of that faith.

It's a little hypocritical and inconsistent, it why I don't buy this freedom of speech argument, nor will I be lead by the political agenda of the day or narrative set by certain media groups. I'll oppose what I believe to be wrong.

The reality is that the freedom to oppose Muslims wether that be bigoted or not, wether it's paranoia/hate/positive isn't new and is widespread, it comes From every sector of society, from govts, funded think tanks, papers, political groups, protest groups, individuals and whoever you can think of.


----------



## Mider T (May 4, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> Yay another Muslim hate event. I sure foresee a great future for Muslims like me in the US.



...are you going to ignore the fact that two Muslims tried to shoot up the place?


----------



## Jagger (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Kind of was an Evil vs Evil thing here. On one side we have Islamic Terrorists, on the other side we have a confirmed *HATE GROUP*. Honestly wish they kind of took out each other.
> 
> After all, Pamela fucking Gellar was there.


So you're implying your definition of "Evil" is basically justified and harmless criticism towards the Religion's beliefs, infrastructure and whatnot? This is not a hate group, but a group of diverse cartoonists that desire to find something meaningful to draw about.

Not to mention there's a large difference between an armed group that is known for terrorizing those that criticize their beliefs and the other side whose best weapon is a pencil, at _best._


----------



## SLB (May 4, 2015)

saiyaman, at best this is terrorism vs incitement

and even then, there is a real, underlying issue of free speech being addressed.


----------



## Blue (May 4, 2015)

>Europeans get together and draw offensive cartoons
>Progressive proponents of free speech
>Americans (and Europeans) do it
>Hate group


----------



## Sherlōck (May 4, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think there assholes. But they didn't shoot anyone.



Never said they did. 

Anyway if you are under the impression I am supporting those two loser who pulled gun there then the answer is I am not. Doesn't mean I am going to support that pathetic event either. They are both loser & I fell sorry for all the people who joined the exhibition &  those Muslim who went there armed & planned to kill people.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 4, 2015)

Just condemn the fucking shooting then.


----------



## hammer (May 4, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> How is America being Islamified? Theres a way higher chance of America being   Shenified due to the fact that Theres a mass Chinese immigration to America going on.
> Fear Mongerers gonna fear monger I guess



Chinese people can be Muslim FYI and what do you mean shenified do you mean Shintoism? Shintoism is japaneseI think


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Blue said:


> >Europeans get together and draw offensive cartoons
> >Progressive proponents of free speech
> >Americans (and Europeans) do it
> >Hate group


The group who organized the event ARE a Hate Group, a confirmed Anti-Muslim one. 

It doesn't matter because the people who tried to shoot them up are worse? Seriously?



Jagger said:


> So you're implying your definition of "Evil" is basically justified and harmless criticism towards the Religion's beliefs, infrastructure and whatnot? This is not a hate group, but a group of diverse cartoonists that desire to find something meaningful to draw about.
> 
> Not to mention there's a large difference between an armed group that is known for terrorizing those that criticize their beliefs and the other side whose best weapon is a pencil, at _best._


Jagger, the group that organized this is a _known_ hate group. Look up Pamela Gellar and her group, they're like the anti-Muslim KKK. Its a right-wing Anti-Muslim group which has tried repeatedly to infringe on the rights of Muslims living in America. They weren't doing this to support free speech _at all_, they were trying to cause an incendiary incident so they could further their own bigoted objectives.


----------



## ExoSkel (May 4, 2015)

I love the straw man logic of "but...but...but...they are a hate group!". So fucking what? 

How does that justify what those butthurt muslims tried to do at that exhibition?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

ExoSkel said:


> I love the straw man logic of "but...but...but...they are a hate group!". So fucking what?
> 
> How does that justify what those butthurt muslims tried to do at that exhibition?


It doesn't justify it. I'm saying I viewed it as an Evil vs Evil thing since *both* sides did evil in different ways. Said hate group wants to infringe on American Muslim's rights while the shooters are no better than ISIS.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 4, 2015)

It's irrelevant, you're trying to deflect from the actions that took place. These extremists wanted and carried out that desire, to kill people for exercising their rights as free citizens. It's as simple as that.


----------



## makeoutparadise (May 4, 2015)

radical Muslim terrorists will not tell us what we can or cannot draw


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (May 4, 2015)

makeoutparadise said:


> radical Muslim terrorists will not tell us what we can or cannot draw



So just to spite them it's alright to insult all Muslims?


----------



## Jagger (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Jagger, the group that organized this is a _known_ hate group. Look up Pamela Gellar and her group, they're like the anti-Muslim KKK. Its a right-wing Anti-Muslim group which has tried repeatedly to infringe on the rights of Muslims living in America. They weren't doing this to support free speech _at all_, they were trying to cause an incendiary incident so they could further their own bigoted objectives.


And every single individual that attented the convention is a well-known radicalist with nothing but pure contempt and not just a random cartoonist with the chance of bashing religion is something you know because...? 

As I said, there's a difference between both. It's entirely possible that _some_ hates the Muslim community, but their actions are pretty much harmless in contrast to those two nutjobs with no notion of empathy.


----------



## hammer (May 4, 2015)

Jagger said:


> And every single individual that attented the convention is a well-known radicalist with nothing but pure contempt and not just a random cartoonist with the chance of bashing religion is something you know because...?
> 
> As I said, there's a difference between both. It's entirely possible that _some_ hates the Muslim community, but their actions are pretty much harmless in contrast to those two nutjobs with no notion of empathy.



funny thing is they didn't even shoot the people he is talking about it was a security guard


----------



## ExoSkel (May 4, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> So just to spite them it's alright to insult all Muslims?


Drawing Mohammad is considered insulting all muslims?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 4, 2015)

hey man mohammed (PEANUT BUTTAH) is SACRED and attempting to draw his image is SACRILEGE and HARAM :absolutelyharam


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Jagger said:


> And every single individual that attented the convention is a well-known radicalist with nothing but pure contempt and not just a random cartoonist with the chance of bashing religion is something you know because...?


...since it wasn't a convention? Other groups who organize these things aren't in on it (usually with support of the Muslim community)? Since this thing could only be fit into one room of an entire high school instead of a packed auditorium?

These guys were nutjobs of a different sort. They are bigots. 

If the KKK organized an event to show the 'best' Anti-Semitic pictures with a bonus of drawings of lynched African Americans, would you be as supportive as you are of THIS group who wanted to close down a Muslim center?


> As I said, there's a difference between both. It's entirely possible that _some_ hates the Muslim community, but their actions are pretty much harmless in contrast to those two nutjobs with no notion of empathy.


And soon we'll probably be hearing of the Muslim Community being harassed, victims of hate crimes, all from THESE bastards who suddenly see themselves justified because of the shooters.


----------



## emachina (May 4, 2015)

Isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center that group that inspired a gunman to attempt to go on a killing spree and decorate his planned victims at the Family Rsearch Council with Chick-Fil-A sandwiches?

Pretty sure they are. Funny that. How the anti hate group inspired a domestic terrorist attack. It's almost as if extremist don't need an actual reason. Just a scape goat to justify their stupidity. 

Hmm, food for thought.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

^ ...what the heck?


----------



## Megaharrison (May 4, 2015)

Last 5 threads have been self-declared "progressives" and Muslims trying to rationalize/justify this.

How surprising. The alliance between the far left and Islam is hilarious. Because hating America/Jews they don't got much in common.


----------



## emachina (May 4, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^ ...what the heck?





Yeah, crazy guy who was eventually charged with domestic terrorism, blamed the SPLC. It's a bunch of crap, dude was crazy. But by the SPLC standard's, they're a hate group for inciting violence. I mostly agree with the SPLC. And, I think they have a noble cause. But they can also slap the "hate group" label on any group they have a policy disagreement on.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 4, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Last 5 threads have been self-declared "progressives" and Muslims trying to rationalize/justify this.
> 
> How surprising. The alliance between the far left and Islam is hilarious. Because hating America/Jews they don't got much in common.


...no one is 'justifying' this, many have been claiming that both sides are just shit.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 4, 2015)

emachina said:


> Yeah, crazy guy who was eventually charged with domestic terrorism, blamed the SPLC. It's a bunch of crap, dude was crazy. But by the SPLC standard's, they're a hate group for inciting violence. I mostly agree with the SPLC. And, I think they have a noble cause. But they can also slap the "hate group" label on any group they have a policy disagreement on.



What about the Christians who gave death threats to the child actor of Good Luck Charlie over having a lesbian couple in an episode?


----------



## emachina (May 4, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> What about the Christians who gave death threats to the child actor of Good Luck Charlie over having a lesbian couple in an episode?



Uh....they're assholes and should go to jail.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 4, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Last 5 threads have been self-declared "progressives" and Muslims trying to rationalize/justify this.
> 
> How surprising. The alliance between the far left and Islam is hilarious. Because hating America/Jews they don't got much in common.



Um, I'm pretty far left.


----------



## baconbits (May 5, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> The problem for Islam is that as the civilized response to trolling being counter trolling, i.e. making cartoons mocking Jesus, is a double edged sword since they view him as a prophet as well.



I've never really heard of Muslims being mad about the mockery of Jesus.  If they are I've not seen a response to the cross in urine exhibit or Jesus being raped in some cartoons.  Its sad but some people call that kind of art brave.

On the other hand we have these muslims who want to kill anyone who draws a picture of their prophet. I tend to support groups who poke those jerks in the eye, if only to say we won't be pushed around by your thuggish behavior.



krory said:


> You guys should really be embarrassed that CTK...



Bro.  Is CTK your form of slapass?

[YOUTUBE]9Mlp_Gcc_5Q[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## GearsUp (May 5, 2015)

these threads just arent interestin without fiona..


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 5, 2015)

baconbits said:


> I've never really heard of Muslims being mad about the mockery of Jesus.  If they are I've not seen a response to the cross in urine exhibit or Jesus being raped in some cartoons.  Its sad but some people call that kind of art brave.
> 
> On the other hand we have these muslims who want to kill anyone who draws a picture of their prophet. I tend to support groups who poke those jerks in the eye, if only to say we won't be pushed around by your thuggish behavior.
> 
> ...



Muslims have actually gotten mad about people not mocking the Mohammad too. A lot of them don't like him depicted whether it's positive or negative.


----------



## Zyrax (May 5, 2015)

GearsUp said:


> these threads just arent interestin without fiona..


                    .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 5, 2015)

Ah, I knew we were missing someone.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

I'm at work on mobile so I CBA to link but ISIS is claiming responsibility for this. One of the shooters had verifiable connections as well.

First attack on domestic soil by ISIS

And a complete fucking failure 

But go ahead, Sherlock and WT and so on. Let's defend them now


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

WAD said:


> I'm at work on mobile so I CBA to link but ISIS is claiming responsibility for this. One of the shooters had verifiable connections as well.
> 
> First attack on domestic soil by ISIS
> 
> ...



Are you a retard? 

When the hell did anyone defend those dipshit?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

Pretty sure you and several others did under your breaths.

"The shooting was evil but the cartoonists are just as evil! It's only natural that happened!"


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

So basically you don't have any proof & talking out of your ass.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

It's implied when you denounce the cartoonists at first and only utter a quarter-emphatic disavowal of the shooters after you and the rest of your Social Jihad Warriors were BTFO'd as you should be.


----------



## Pliskin (May 5, 2015)

Remember, it is an_ evil versus evil_ thing


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

Are you a mind reader now? 

You still talking out of your ass. Why the hell do I need to condemn *every time* an idiot loser takes a gun out & shoot at people because he got his feelings hurt ? Several times condemning same act by idiots in past aren't enough ? I have to do it every fucking time cause unless I do it every time it doesn't hold any water ?  

If anything is implied here then it should be the one that I am already condemning the act. Just cause you are moving your goal post every time doesn't mean I have to chase around it to satisfy your need.

And "NEWS FLASH" you can condemn the act while criticizing this event organized by the hate group. Criticizing the event doesn't imply I am supporting or defending these idiots action. 



> Social Jihad Warriors



 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Idiot.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

>implying you can have implied condemnation of party B when you're only posting to condemn party A


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

> Went from supporting/defending these idiots to implication of supporting/defending these idiots.

By the way I am still waiting for that post where I allegedly defended their action.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

At least talking out of ass isn't my strong suit.That one goes to you.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

Riveting repartee, Rasheed.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

Who the fuck is Rasheed? Is that the new Oil field owner that's your new BFF even though he funds terrorists openly & you stay silent?


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 5, 2015)

So you can hate/dislike all religions but not one specific religion in particular?


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

Commanding comeback, camel cavalier


----------



## Garcher (May 5, 2015)

Pamela Geller and co let Pegida look like communists

it's not like they provoked this 

well, I don't have a problem if 2 of the worst kinds of idiots try to kill each other


----------



## Yahiko (May 5, 2015)

baconbits said:


> The whole point of free speech is that you can bash anyone you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Bro, you're cool but you gotta limit this obsession.  One CTK post every two days.  Let's start slow.


And whats the purpose of bashing a religion?  what will you achieve from it, srsly can't people just move onto do bigger and better things in life instead of spreading hate and discrimination. How about people stop hating religion  and accept it in their society as this is the reality and truth of the world. We live in a world with people of different religions and beliefs. There are over 2.2 billion christians in the world, 1.6 billion muslims in the world and a big population of other religions. If you insult a religion , their followers will get offended and thats when  all the hatred and discrimination between people begins. I am not saying shooting is the right thing to do. I am just  questioning why do you start stuff like this in the first place. Whats the purpose of making cartoons of jesus, mohammad and what will people achieve from it?  


ExoSkel said:


> Drawing Mohammad is considered insulting all muslims?


Yes. If someone insults your mother, father, brother,  sister, friends, will you get offended or not. Yes you will because your friends and family are the valuable people in your life. Similarly we value our prophet much. He was a teacher of islam. He was an innocent person who had already tolerated these kind of hate and discrimination in his life by the very same people like these cartoonists. An insult to Islam or Muhammad or any of the prophets is an insult to us and our beliefs.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

> He was an innocent person


----------



## Louis Cyphre (May 5, 2015)

Your religious sensitivities are not above free speech. 'Learn how to Merica.

> innocent
> fucked a prepubescent girl
> killed God knows how many people


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 5, 2015)

Wad stop baiting this poor kid


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

Chucky you sound emotional. You need to visit a nude beach to clear your mind.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

You know what else is protected free speech? KKK.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (May 5, 2015)

supersaiyan being a dummy. not surprised.


----------



## Yahiko (May 5, 2015)

WAD said:


>


so all that you people know about Muhammad is that he married a 6 year old girl and went to wars but did you know the reason why he married her, did you know those wars were fought in defense including the first islamic war,  did you know that people of the taif city threw stones at him when he went there to teach islam?  Did you know there was a non muslim in madina who used to throw garbage on him on daily basis. Did you know that the arab non muslims planned to assassinate Muhammad numerous times. Did you know how many of his relatives,and friends were tortured and killed by the non muslims when they accepted Islam. Did you know that a a non muslim woman called "Hind"  after defeating muslims in their second war cutted the abdomen of his martyred uncle hamza and chewed his liver to avenge her brother and father who were killed in the first war and most importantly did you know his response to all these kind of situations? I am sure you might be thinking he beheaded them,  killed them for revenge. You think you've learnt everything about islam and Muhammad's life from the media, news and rumours. Do some research bro. 


Louis Cyphre said:


> Your religious sensitivities are not above free speech. 'Learn how to Merica.
> 
> > innocent
> > fucked a prepubescent girl
> > killed God knows how many people


Coming from the non muslims thats nothing new. A lot of converts used to have doubts and questions like that about islam. Do some research then you'll find answers to your questions. 


Sherlōck said:


> Chucky you sound emotional. You need to visit a nude beach to clear your mind.



 Nope how about we stay on topic. People still didn't answer my questions. Shooting is condemnable but people should also not support a group that spreads hate and discrimination


----------



## makeoutparadise (May 5, 2015)

ExoSkel said:


> Drawing Mohammad is considered insulting all muslims?



some Muslim have drawn the prophet themselves


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 5, 2015)

>but did you know the reason why he married  her,

"Why" is not really important here, marrying a 6 year old is just wrong.

 >  did you know that people of the taif city threw stones at  him when he went there to teach islam?

So what? people have even thrown stones on other famous people

 >Did you know there was a non  muslim in madina who used to throw garbage on him on daily basis.

Again, how does that matter?

> Did  you know that the arab non muslims planned to assassinate Muhammad  numerous times. 

Same thing, what is such a big deal about that. There have been plan of assassinating a lot of famous people. 

>Did you know how many of his relatives,and friends were  tortured and killed by the non muslims when they accepted Islam. 

New philosophies face resistance from old one and it is unpleasant, nothing out of ordinary about it. 

>Did you  know that a a non muslim woman called "Hind"  after defeating muslims  in their second war cutted the abdomen of his martyred uncle hamza and  chewed his liver to avenge her brother and father who were killed in the  first war and most importantly did you know his response to all these  kind of situations?

that comparison makes zero sense, if someone did something really bad doesn't mean you have to follow them.

 >I am sure you might be thinking he beheaded them,   killed them for revenge. You think you've learnt everything about islam  and Muhammad's life from the media, news and rumours. Do some research  bro

So you are saying he forgave everyone? and didn't take anyone's life?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 5, 2015)

> Coming from the non muslims thats nothing new. A lot of converts used to have doubts and questions like that about islam. Do some research then you'll find answers to your questions.



I have seen the answers and they are very fucked up. 

Someone told me that Aisha wanted it. 

A nine-year old. Wanted it...from a guy in his 50s...

Not to mention all the other hedonism and murder he engaged in.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 5, 2015)

Religion of PEACE


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

No religion is by your logic.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> Nope how about we stay on topic.



You sound angry. 



> People still didn't answer my questions.



What question? Why people do this ? Why are people sexiest? Why are people racist? Why people hate gay? 

I can ask hundreds of question similar to this & the answer will be more or less same. You know that answer yet you are making a fuss about it. I don't see the point of your question.


----------



## baconbits (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> And whats the purpose of bashing a religion?



Who knows?  In a free society you don't need a good purpose to exercise your freedoms.  We can disagree with someone saying something, but we should still defend their right to say it.



Chucky181 said:


> Whats the purpose of making cartoons of jesus, mohammad and what will people achieve from it?
> 
> Yes. If someone insults your mother, father, brother,  sister, friends, will you get offended or not.



I want to correct you on something.  Christians, Buddhists and others get offended; radical Muslims kill.  There is a big difference between the two reactions.


----------



## Yahiko (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> And whats the purpose of bashing a religion?  what will you achieve from it, srsly can't people just move onto do bigger and better things in life instead of spreading hate and discrimination. How about people stop hating religion  and accept it in their society as this is the reality and truth of the world. We live in a world with people of different religions and beliefs. There are over 2.2 billion christians in the world, 1.6 billion muslims in the world and a big population of other religions. If you insult a religion , their followers will get offended and thats when  all the hatred and discrimination between people begins. I am not saying shooting is the right thing to do. I am just  questioning why do you start stuff like this in the first place. Whats the purpose of making cartoons of jesus, mohammad and what will people achieve from it?


I think we are posting more off topic stuff some of you still refuse to answer the questions i asked in this post. 


ThunderCunt said:


> >but did you know the reason why he married  her,
> 
> "Why" is not really important here, marrying a 6 year old is just wrong.


it used to be a custom to marry young girls in the old centuries besides Muhammad ain't the only person in the world who married a young girl. There are a lot of other historical figures from the west who married young girls and kept concubines. You should look check how he used to treat his wives. He married 1 child but you should check the age of his other wives. Almost all of his wives were widows. He accepted widows. People usually dont accept widows and they look down on them. This is an example of how kind he was towards the women. 


> >  did you know that people of the taif city threw stones at  him when he went there to teach islam?
> 
> So what? people have even thrown stones on other famous people


throwing stones on a person who is just trying to teach a religion is a cruel act but despite getting attacked from them he forgave them and didnt wage war on them. This is one of the most popular incidents that are told to the followers. It proves his innocence.  


> >Did you know there was a non  muslim in madina who used to throw garbage on him on daily basis.
> 
> Again, how does that matter?


again one of the incidents that proves his innocence, If someone threw garbage on you just once you'll shout on them beat them but Muhammad wasn't like that he never bothered about this. 


> > Did  you know that the arab non muslims planned to assassinate Muhammad  numerous times.
> 
> Same thing, what is such a big deal about that. There have been plan of assassinating a lot of famous people.


this tells us how much enemies he made for teaching a religion. When other people can't win they plan for assassinations 


> >Did you know how many of his relatives,and friends were  tortured and killed by the non muslims when they accepted Islam.
> 
> New philosophies face resistance from old one and it is unpleasant, nothing out of ordinary about it.


so you should torture and kill them?  This  act is no different from the terrorist groups' actions. Its pure terrorism. Just tryin to tell you how difficult it was for muslims to live in that era 


> >Did you  know that a a non muslim woman called "Hind"  after defeating muslims  in their second war cutted the abdomen of his martyred uncle hamza and  chewed his liver to avenge her brother and father who were killed in the  first war and most importantly did you know his response to all these  kind of situations?
> 
> that comparison makes zero sense, if someone did something really bad doesn't mean you have to follow them.


The first war was waged by non muslims.. The father of that woman was the leader of the non muslims he wanted to wage war on the muslims in medina,  the muslims fought in defense and her father and brother were killed in a war so it was not Muslims' fault as her father was the one who wanted war. But people get killed during wars so killing hamza wasn't something that bothered Muhammad but it was the thing she did with Hamza's body that bothered Muhammad but years later when muslims returned to their original homeland mecca 
he forgave her. 


> >I am sure you might be thinking he beheaded them,   killed them for revenge. You think you've learnt everything about islam  and Muhammad's life from the media, news and rumours. Do some research  bro
> 
> So you are saying he forgave everyone? and didn't take anyone's life?


yes thats one of the main traits of his behaviour with the people. I am a muslim I know much more knowledge about islam this is what we' ve read from the reliable sources of hadiths. He was the most forgiving and merciful. He started teaching religion at the age of 40 when he discovered that he was a prophet from angel gabriel.  Before the age of 40 and prophethood he was known as a truthful innocent man in the society. Its because of his humbleness and kind behaviour Khadijah a well known trader proposed muhammad when he was 25 years old and she became his first wife. 


Seto Kaiba said:


> I have seen the answers and they are very fucked up.
> 
> Someone told me that Aisha wanted it.
> 
> ...


You and I should have a chat someday you seem like a nice person  I' ve seen your posts in the naruto sections I will clear your misconceptions.  What you heard is wrong I dont know where did you hear that from but this is never taught in the sunni islam. Not sure about other sects but any sunni will disagree with you and besides he was not violent. He engaged in some wars in defense people got killed. He never carried out any extra tasks of killing innocent people neither evil people. You know the rules of war he made regarding the treatment of enemies?  He told his companions 
> Not to kill the enemies women 
> Not to kill the enemies' children 
> not to kill the old people 
> not to destroy the trees and lands of the enemies 
> not to destroy the buildings, homes of the enemies
> not to treat prisoners harshly 
He told them to provide the prisoners with water and food. He said that if the prisoners teach 10 people how to read and write,  then they would be freed. You shouldnt try to learn islam from "someone" who lacks the true knowledge about islam. You should go to a mosque and ask sunni imam these questions,  he will explain this from the quran and hadith and dont worry he wont kill you


----------



## Yahiko (May 5, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> You sound angry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope I dont know the answer and neither do I know what people will achieve from mocking a religion.  Insulting a religion ain't gonna stop the religion or change anything. dont you think people should do better things in life.  


baconbits said:


> Who knows?  In a free society you don't need a good purpose to exercise your freedoms.  We can disagree with someone saying something, but we should still defend their right to say it.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to correct you on something.  Christians, Buddhists and others get offended; radical Muslims kill.  There is a big difference between the two reactions.


I condemn the shootings you can execute the shooters, but if we stop spreading hate everyone will be happy


----------



## Narcissus (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> And whats the purpose of bashing a religion?  what will you achieve from it, srsly can't people just move onto do bigger and better things in life instead of spreading hate and discrimination.


The irony...

...stop for a second and think about the hate and discrimination that is spread, *BECAUSE* of religion. Yet you're hypocritically ignoring that in order to cry injustice over harmless drawings.





> If you insult a religion , their followers will get offended and thats when  all the hatred and discrimination between people begins.


Nonsense. The hatred and discrimination began with your religion alredy.

Many followers of religions condemn others for not adhering to the teachings of their religions. Many of those teachings are hateful and discriminatory to begin with.





> Whats the purpose of making cartoons of jesus, mohammad and what will people achieve from it?


It's called *satire*. It isn't done just to be offensive, and in this context it's often used to demonstrate some form of hypocrisy or stupidity within a religion or its followers.

For example:


More relevant to you, Muslims claim Islam to be a religion of peace, while they will kill people over drawing a picture of Muhammad (among other ridiculous reasons).


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 5, 2015)

Narcissus said:


> snip.


Oh look the camp fool is here. I wanna see what new BS you pull out of your hat.


----------



## Narcissus (May 5, 2015)

The Handsome Klad said:


> Oh look the camp fool is here.



Looking in the mirror? klad, with nothing of value to say, as usual.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 5, 2015)

Narcissus said:


> Looking in the mirror? klad, with nothing of value to say, as usual.



Hating on religious people as always and using fallacies to promote your idea. 
Quick question, if you get sucked far up enough your ass, could you die from the fumes of your own stank?

I know you're already braindead, but we need to finish the job.


----------



## Narcissus (May 5, 2015)

The Handsome Klad said:


> Hating on religious people as always and using fallacies to promote your idea.



Straw man as usual, which is particularly funny considering your accusation of fallacies. 

Stay mad klad.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 5, 2015)

> You and I should have a chat someday you seem like a nice person I' ve seen your posts in the naruto sections I will clear your misconceptions. What you heard is wrong I dont know where did you hear that from but this is never taught in the sunni islam. Not sure about other sects but any sunni will disagree with you and besides he was not violent. He engaged in some wars in defense people got killed. He never carried out any extra tasks of killing innocent people neither evil people. You know the rules of war he made regarding the treatment of enemies? He told his companions
> > Not to kill the enemies women
> > Not to kill the enemies' children
> > not to kill the old people
> ...



But Mohammed took slaves, sex slaves even, and it seemed whenever he wanted something or whenever an act of his would break previously established rules it became suddenly the will of God that he and he only became exception to them. For example, it was forbidden to lay with the wives of your slaves or servants, but apparently God had willed it so for Mohammed. IIRC, he even took the wives of one of his followers for his own.

The same to Aisha. It was not normal to marry so young, perhaps at the early teens but not 6, and definitely not normally to consummate such a marriage so early. She was young enough to be granted to exception to play with dolls, which says a lot about how young she was at the time of her betrothal.

As for war, the book quite literally demands that nonbelievers be killed. Mohammed engaged in the slayings of such, while some decrees were put forth on treatment of such this very selectively applied. It was basically a condition of convert or die. 

Nearly all apologists for the Abrahamic faiths tell you something like this though.



Narcissus said:


> Looking in the mirror? klad, with nothing of value to say, as usual.



He's struggling to be relevant. Not worth the consideration, IMO.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 5, 2015)

Narcissus said:


> Straw man as usual, which is particularly funny considering your accusation of fallacies.
> 
> Stay mad klad.



Have you read your posts? Come back after you've been outside and ask yourself "Was I high?"

Don't call me mad when your posts are filled with so much edge it could power Seto for a month.


----------



## Narcissus (May 5, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He's struggling to be relevant. Not worth the consideration, IMO.



I've noticed. I've got to agree that there is no point in wasting more time or thread space replying to someone who clearly needs help to get dressed in the morning.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 5, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He's struggling to be relevant. Not worth the consideration, IMO.


If that's how you see it Seto, then sure why not.


----------



## Louis Cyphre (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> Coming from the non muslims thats nothing new. A lot of converts used to have doubts and questions like that about islam. Do some research then you'll find answers to your questions.



You are under the assumption that mental gymnastics will somehow make the degeneracy of your prophet less horrible.

You'd be wrong in that regard.


----------



## baconbits (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> I condemn the shootings you can execute the shooters, but if we stop spreading hate everyone will be happy



I'm not so sure about that.  Remember that many of these people want to kill people who have done nothing to spread hate.  Many of them want to just kill Americans and jews just for the sheer carnage of the act itself.  When they attacked the twin towers not a single person in those towers could be considered a popular proponent of hate.

In short hatred doesn't have to come from anything rational.  Some people just hate to hate.  Being a minority (in religion at least) I think you can see where I'm coming from.  Some people hate just to hate.


----------



## Yahiko (May 5, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> But Mohammed took slaves, sex slaves even, and it seemed whenever he wanted something or whenever an act of his would break previously established rules it became suddenly the will of God that he and he only became exception to them. For example, it was forbidden to lay with the wives of your slaves or servants, but apparently God had willed it so for Mohammed. IIRC, he even took the wives of one of his followers for his own.
> 
> The same to Aisha. It was not normal to marry so young, perhaps at the early teens but not 6, and definitely not normally to consummate such a marriage so early. She was young enough to be granted to exception to play with dolls, which says a lot about how young she was at the time of her betrothal.
> 
> ...


I have already planned to post about these questions like the verses of killing and the marriage in the islamic debate thread after the exams. I am kind of busy and rarely get free times these days and when I do I spend that time in that naruto sections and post in the cafe if there is something important I am always online from the mobile though. but I heard you saying in one of the threads that you are ok with christianity but hate islam. Bible has verses of killing too


----------



## Yahiko (May 5, 2015)

Narcissus said:


> The irony...
> 
> ...stop for a second and think about the hate and discrimination that is spread, *BECAUSE* of religion. Yet you're hypocritically ignoring that in order to cry injustice over harmless drawings.Nonsense. The hatred and discrimination began with your religion alredy.
> 
> ...


Yes islam is truly a religion of peace but some muslims are violent. Two people shot the cartoonist and you are using "they" to describe the entire muslim community. You simply ignored thousands of other muslims in america who remained quiet and did nothing for this. Cut out the population of the terrorists, the rest of the population is moderate and innocent. The population of the violent muslims is minor compared to the normal moderate muslims.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 5, 2015)

Love the double standards here now. If this was an event the KKK or Neo-Nazi's made, making art of the best anti-Semitic or best lynching artwork, you'd all be up in arms on how such a thing could happen. Yet since its Islamaphobia from another known hate group, suddenly they are 'righteous protectors of Free Speech' since they did something you agree with (mocking a religion, specifically Islam since its fun for you guys to make fun of it). And then it goes into a conversation on applying modern standards to events that took place over 1000 years ago to try to be clever.

Seriously, if these guys who made the event start harassing the Muslim Community in Texas and other places, would you still support them?


----------



## Blue (May 5, 2015)

Hey guys remember when those two radicalized islamist maniacs tried to brutally murder a bunch of people with assault rifles and got shot to pieces and died in the street without taking a single life?

Fucking good times, right?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (May 5, 2015)

Blue said:


> Hey guys remember when those two radicalized islamist maniacs tried to brutally murder a bunch of people with assault rifles and got shot to pieces and died in the street without taking a single life?
> 
> Fucking good times, right?




NO ONE IS CONDONING THEM! For fuck's sake, what is it with Narutoforums and its members being so entrenched in Islamaphobia they can't recognize that a hate group shouldn't be supported fucking at all?! Is it because you feel justified in hating Muslims when two radicals do this?


----------



## Son of Goku (May 5, 2015)

Zyrax Pasha said:


> Appearantly One of them was a terror suspect well known to the FBI



Just known or also recruited by the FBI? 



Jagger said:


> So you're implying your definition of "Evil" is basically justified and harmless criticism towards the Religion's beliefs, infrastructure and whatnot?



So you're implying that this hate group is justified and harmless? 




And no, I'm not condoning violence against hate groups (unless in self-defence obviously). But for hate groups to incite violence like that, for no reason at all, is no small thing either.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 5, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Love the double standards here now. If this was an event the KKK or Neo-Nazi's made, making art of the best anti-Semitic or best lynching artwork, you'd all be up in arms on how such a thing could happen. Yet since its Islamaphobia from another known hate group, suddenly they are 'righteous protectors of Free Speech' since they did something you agree with (mocking a religion, specifically Islam since its fun for you guys to make fun of it). And then it goes into a conversation on applying modern standards to events that took place over 1000 years ago to try to be clever.
> 
> Seriously, if these guys who made the event start harassing the Muslim Community in Texas and other places, would you still support them?



I think SSM12 got hacked. This can't possibly be him.


----------



## Narcissus (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> Two people shot the cartoonist and you are using "they" to describe the entire muslim community.


Two people in *THIS* particular case. But this behavior is far from unprecedented..

There are countless examples of Muslims committing these atrocities, or supporting them, or making threats.





> Cut out the population of the terrorists, the rest of the population is moderate and innocent.


It's far from that, because even without the terrorists (who we are not ignoring, because they are members of the religion), there are still issues with the religion itself. Such as its treatment of women, homosexuals, and non-believers.

Not to mention the problems with your prophet Muhammad, although numerous people have explained this in detail.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (May 5, 2015)

No one's posted the winning cartoon yet?

If (like some of the retards on here claim) the entire purpose for this exhibit was to mock and insult Islam, then I'd imagine that a very provocative cartoon would have won. But instead, the cartoon that won exemplifies *why* this exhibit existed in the first place.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (May 5, 2015)

heavy_rasengan said:


> No one's posted the winning cartoon yet?
> 
> If (like some of the retards on here claim) the entire purpose for this exhibit was to mock and insult Islam, then I'd imagine that a very provocative cartoon would have won. But instead, the cartoon that won exemplifies *why* this exhibit existed in the first place.



The act of drawing Muhamad is insulting to the vast majority of Muslims. "No insult intended" does not make it not insulting. The group is simply a hate group and the event is a hate event. Want to bash Muslim extremists? You can do that in a thousand way rather than just drawing insulting images to all Muslims. You can do a whole lecture of how the extremist reaction to insults is not even embraced by Islam. You can make a lecture of how those extremists are a danger that needs to be addressed. You can actually make a drawing contest featuring angry stupid extremists who are ready to kill people just because they insulted their religion. You can insult extremists in all ways and mock them in all ways but these people decided to insult all Muslims. Apparently there is no other way to mock extremists without shitting on all Muslims. No one is stopping you from insulting Muslims but don't claim that you're all that innocent and just want to practice freedom of speech. I can deliver a hate speech just to prove that I CAN do it because it's my right, that doesn't mean it's not insulting to anyone.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 5, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> I have already planned to post about these questions like the verses of killing and the marriage in the islamic debate thread after the exams. I am kind of busy and rarely get free times these days and when I do I spend that time in that naruto sections and post in the cafe if there is something important I am always online from the mobile though. but I heard you saying in one of the threads that you are ok with christianity but hate islam. Bible has verses of killing too



Where did you get that from? I am just as, if not moreso, critical of Christianity.

Yet that does not blind me to clear issues present in Islam today. The central figure is a warlord that has done a number of horrible things, and this man is held as a paragon of virtue in religion in spite of these acts. Furthermore, you have an issue unlike in Christianity in the modern world, where too many faithful in Islam follow the more abhorrent texts closely to the letter. Which is how you get something like Islamic terrorism and oppressive, sharia law.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 5, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> The act of drawing Muhamad is insulting to the vast majority of Muslims. "No insult intended" does not make it not insulting. The group is simply a hate group and the event is a hate event. Want to bash Muslim extremists? You can do that in a thousand way rather than just drawing insulting images to all Muslims. You can do a whole lecture of how the extremist reaction to insults is not even embraced by Islam. You can make a lecture of how those extremists are a danger that needs to be addressed. You can actually make a drawing contest featuring angry stupid extremists who are ready to kill people just because they insulted their religion. You can insult extremists in all ways and mock them in all ways but these people decided to insult all Muslims. Apparently there is no other way to mock extremists without shitting on all Muslims. No one is stopping you from insulting Muslims but don't claim that you're all that innocent and just want to practice freedom of speech. I can deliver a hate speech just to prove that I CAN do it because it's my right, that doesn't mean it's not insulting to anyone.


Being a blubbering child is one of the five pillars of Islam.


----------



## Krory (May 5, 2015)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> NO ONE IS CONDONING THEM! For fuck's sake, what is it with Narutoforums and its members being so entrenched in Islamaphobia they can't recognize that a hate group shouldn't be supported fucking at all?! Is it because you feel justified in hating Muslims when two radicals do this?



>No one is condoning them
>Condones it with every post by trying to excuse it


----------



## Krory (May 5, 2015)

Hey Mega, what are the chances we can get this as some kind of banner for the Cafe?


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (May 5, 2015)

Remember that episode of south park that was heavily censored because of the whole muslim prophet thing?  

Here is the uncensored version that comedy central completely bleeped out.... 



We need events like these.


----------



## Sanity Check (May 5, 2015)

That moment when Texans wish they'd have played horse shoes instead?

.


----------



## Oceania (May 5, 2015)

I see people making fun of Christianity and Jesus all the time but I don't go around shooting places up.
people on here claiming others of being islamphobic. Well if these backward ass people would quit doing shit like this, there wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## emachina (May 5, 2015)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> The act of drawing Muhamad is insulting to the vast majority of Muslims. "No insult intended" does not make it not insulting. The group is simply a hate group and the event is a hate event. Want to bash Muslim extremists? You can do that in a thousand way rather than just drawing insulting images to all Muslims. You can do a whole lecture of how the extremist reaction to insults is not even embraced by Islam. You can make a lecture of how those extremists are a danger that needs to be addressed. You can actually make a drawing contest featuring angry stupid extremists who are ready to kill people just because they insulted their religion. You can insult extremists in all ways and mock them in all ways but these people decided to insult all Muslims. Apparently there is no other way to mock extremists without shitting on all Muslims. No one is stopping you from insulting Muslims but don't claim that you're all that innocent and just want to practice freedom of speech. I can deliver a hate speech just to prove that I CAN do it because it's my right, that doesn't mean it's not insulting to anyone.



So appeasement is the new freedom? Well, in that case. You've offended me and angered me and I feel insulted by your comments. So, practice what you preech and shut the fuck up, and stop posting in this thread!


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

If Islamaphobe Pamela Geller's plan was to make herself a martyr, then it backfired as even DONALD TRUMP and Fox News called her out on her actions.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

Oceania said:


> I see people making fun of Christianity and Jesus all the time but I don't go around shooting places up.
> people on here claiming others of being islamphobic. Well if these backward ass people would quit doing shit like this, there wouldn't be a problem.



Then why go after ONLY Islam? You really should read AFDI's history.


----------



## Oceania (May 5, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> Then why go after ONLY Islam? You really should read AFDI's history.



Doesn't matter being "offended" is not a reason to justify violent actions.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

Oceania said:


> Doesn't matter being "offended" is not a reason to justify violent actions.



Neither does sending death threats over having a gay couple in a children's show nor a cop beating up a protester wearing a "F*** the police" shirt.


----------



## Oceania (May 5, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> Neither does sending death threats over having a gay couple in a children's show nor a cop beating up a protester wearing a "F*** the police" shirt.



wearing a F*** the police shirt. 
Getting mad when you get beat up. 

ok.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

Oceania said:


> wearing a F*** the police shirt.
> Getting mad when you get beat up.
> 
> ok.



That last bit actually happened in Baltimore with the person pepper sprayed and pulled his hair into the ground. You don't see white people getting hurt like that without warning.

Point is, what is there to be gained from the contest?


----------



## Oceania (May 5, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> That last bit actually happened in Baltimore with the person pepper sprayed and pulled his hair into the ground. You don't see white people getting hurt like that without warning.
> 
> Point is, what is there to be gained from the contest?



But there was no intent to kill in that incidence, like there was in the muhammad exhibit shooting.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 5, 2015)

Oceania said:


> But there was no intent to kill in that incidence, like there was in the muhammad exhibit shooting.



But there was an intent to incite heat from a specific group according to Trump. Kind of like wearing blackface. That's protected hate speech unfortunately and same goes for trolling.


----------



## Kagekatsu (May 6, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> But there was an intent to incite heat from a specific group according to Trump. Kind of like wearing blackface. That's protected hate speech unfortunately and same goes for trolling.



Unless you can prove the exhibit was designed to elicit the incident, all you're doing is trying to prove an assumption as fact.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 6, 2015)

That's such a vaguely defined concept, at least in this context. As any set of actions or behavior can be interpreted as provocative, but that does not absolve the offenders of their own personal responsibility which is why it's such a dubious argument to begin with.


----------



## ShibiShiba (May 6, 2015)

If Chalie Hebdo shooting isn't proof enough that an event like this is provocative, then I don't know what does.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 6, 2015)

Well anything is with a group that has shown they have a hair-trigger temper and will kill or threaten anyone over the slightest perceived offense. They need to get the fuck over it and themselves.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

The only good reasons for violence are in response to violence or self defense or just war. While some Muslims might claim this is the latter there's nothing just about gunning people down over their words or beliefs when those things don't phsyically threaten you. 

These people got what they deserve. That's not to say that these other people were "good", but they weren't actually hurting anyone and their offense could have been simply ignored and it wouldn't have matter.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 6, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> *it used to be a custom to marry young girls in the old centuries besides Muhammad ain't the only person in the world who married a young girl. *There are a lot of other historical figures from the west who married young girls and kept concubines. You should look check how he used to treat his wives. He married 1 child but you should check the age of his other wives. Almost all of his wives were widows. He accepted widows. People usually dont accept widows and they look down on them. This is an example of how kind he was towards the women.



That is such a bullshit cop out.

Muhammad & his actions are considered to be ever lasting by Muslims . You can't say he did it cause it was norm of that time. As he claimed to be the prophet of God he should have known better about the subject. He should have banned this disgusting act .

Instead he made marrying 6 years old legitimate for people of all era after him which made pedophilia basically legal in Islam. It was a sickening act & people are still citing him when they commit it nowadays.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

ISIL claimed responsibility for the attack: 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/isis-claims-responsibility-garland-texas-shooting-n353761

I wonder if they know the only dead people in the mix were the ones they claim to back.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 6, 2015)

I don't think IS was behind it. They are claiming responsibility to stay on spotlight or to say they can commit terrorist act in US.

I will wait for official investigation report.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 6, 2015)

Well first of all I'd like to point out that the people killed were security guards, who were presumably just doing their job.

Secondly, does every thread related to islam have to turn into a discussion of whether Muhammad was a p*d*p**** or not?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Well first of all I'd like to point out that the people killed were security guards, who were presumably just doing their job.
> 
> Secondly, does every thread related to islam have to turn into a discussion of whether Muhammad was a p*d*p**** or not?



Nope. It's a well known fact he was a p*d*p****. Only difference between him and Lewis Carroll is the quality of their fiction.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Well first of all I'd like to point out that the people killed were security guards, who were presumably just doing their job.
> 
> Secondly, does every thread related to islam have to turn into a discussion of whether Muhammad was a p*d*p**** or not?



Clearly

the Islam defenders on this website aren't good enough at arguing their own philosophy. Making them, their religion, and their prophet easy targets for mocking.

It's a shame and it turns these threads into a bit of a circlejerk.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Well first of all I'd like to point out that the people killed were security guards, who were presumably just doing their job.
> 
> Secondly, does every thread related to islam have to turn into a discussion of whether Muhammad was a p*d*p**** or not?



Wait, I know one person was hit in the leg. I don't think anyone else died besides the shooters.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 6, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wait, I know one person was hit in the leg. I don't think anyone else died besides the shooters.



Oh wait you're right, I was confused. Never mind me then.

Although the guy shot in the leg was a security guard.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Oh wait you're right, I was confused. Never mind me then.
> 
> Although the guy shot in the leg was a security guard.



Even if people try to make the good guys with guns claim this guy was a cop.


----------



## Pilaf (May 6, 2015)

I wonder what a foaming-at-the-mouth young SJW progressive would think if a cop strangled and killed a young black man who had offended Islam in some way? I'm pretty sure this hypothetical white knight's head would implode from deciding if they hated cops more, or people who offend minority religions.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

Pilaf said:


> I wonder what a foaming-at-the-mouth young SJW progressive would think if a cop strangled and killed a young black man who had offended Islam in some way? I'm pretty sure this hypothetical white knight's head would implode from deciding if they hated cops more, or people who offend minority religions.



That situation makes no sense.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

heavy_rasengan said:


> the cartoon that won exemplifies *why* this exhibit existed in the first place.



AFAIK Mohammad never had a problem with drawings or depictions of himself, so that shitty drawing is plain wrong.



Oceania said:


> Doesn't matter being "offended" is not a reason to justify violent actions.



Good thing then that nobody here ever claimed otherwise. Doesn't change the cringeworthyness of this hater event.


----------



## Blue (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> AFAIK Mohammad never had a problem with drawings or depictions of himself, so that shitty drawing is plain wrong.



Which raises some interesting questions, first of which being why are people dying in his name for something that never concerned him or the word of god


----------



## Yahiko (May 6, 2015)

@seto kaiba I saw you saying in that one thread about australian restaurant or cafe attack (I dont remember what place was attacked) but it was an attack in Australia by one of the Isis men, you said there that you are ok with Christianity because it encourages killing of people. Do you condemn the verses of killing the disbelievers in bible as well?  Moreover half the of the things that you are saying is false. You are saying that Muhammad went to wars to kill people to kill in the name of islam and people were forced to convert thats all wrong. Firstly muslims were the ones who received harsh treatment by the non muslims during the first 10 years of Muhammad's prophethood and as a result they were forced to leave mecca and find a better place to settle their lives now let us look on the list of wars Muhammad participated in and were all of them fought in  offense? 
1) Battle of badr-first fight,  fought in defense after muslims had settled themselves in medina, the rising number of converts angered the non muslims of the mecca and thus they declared war on the muslims. Muslims achieved the victory in this war the total number of muslims soldiers were 313 whereas non muslim soldiers were over 1000 but our skill in combative techniques and the grace of god  were the factors that helped us gain the victory. 
2) Battle of uhud- the second war, after the loss in the first war the non muslims wanted revenge and again wanted war with us so we again fought in defense this time the victory was theirs and many of the muslims were killed , injured and prophet suffered severe injuries in this war. 
3) battle of khandaq-  3rd war, after the converts in khaybar(a city/town) increased, the leader tribe banu nadhir decided to  kill muslims and stop the religion from spreading so they contacted meccans, 20 leaders of the jews and 10 leaders of the quraysh tribe in mecca. Went to war on us again we fought in defense. Muslims won the war after it which it was announced to execute the fighting men including jews. Islam respects people of the book I.e the jews and the christians than the people who worship idols as moses and Jesus are known as prophet in islam. When muslims began settling in khaybar the jews instead of giving equal rights to them allied themselves with the people who practiced idolatry went for war on muslims. Many critics has described this punishment as harsh but what other punishment could be meted out to them. They had violated the pact and instead of helping the muslims, they joined the forces of their enemies and had actually besieged the muslims. There were no prisons where prisoners of war could be detained nor any concentration camps where they could be put to forced labor so we had no choice but to kill the participants of the war except the women and children as Muhammad forbade it to kill them they were taken into custody only after allah allowed them to do so after revealing the verses of slavery which the anti Islamists use it to describe the religion, violent and cruel without even studying the religion properly.  But remember this slavery wasn't the kind of slavery that non muslims engaged into, the slavery of chains or the way the jews and black slaves were treated in the ancient egypt. Islam gave respect to slaves as well and acknowledges them as a human being. The prophet ordered to give slaves, proper food and shelter, treat them nicely, help them in their most difficult tasks and as for the sex with female slaves. It was allowed because it was a human right. Many of the slave girls even married their masters and many slaves converted to islam because of the muslims nice behaviour with them. The children of the slave girls were considered legitimate. But however islam also did not put a fullstop to their important rights. If any slave demands freedom then it was to be granted  to her. If a female slave refused to have sex with her master she was not to be forced as rape is strictly forbidden in islam, if any slave girl has any complain about his master then she can take this case to the islamic court to seek justice. Sexual desires are a human rights so it was permissible to have sex with sex slaves since the husbands of the war captives were killed during wars and woman had no one except her master to have sex with and thats the reason why most of the slave girls didnt demand freedom since they had nowhere to go not even to their relatives homes as almost all the men who participated in war were killed. This is the truth behind islams permission of sex with slaves. How much cruel were the muslims men towards the non muslim women? 
Islam is giving all kinds of rights to the female war captives,  what actions do you think has been harmful to humanity. Many historical figures from the west kept concubines and gave them the exact opposite treatment of the muslims. I dont see anything wrong with having sex with the sex slaves, the way islam has alllowed us to do. Furthermore it is important to note this only applies to the war captives, not some random female whom you can buy from the streets, which is still happening in this world including the west. LIAM NEESON' S TAKEN movie explains that very well. That kind of slavery is prohibited in islam. 
4) battle of khaibar- again upon discovering about the loss of jews, the jews of other regions of the saudi arabia wanted to avenge their lost brothers. Again this is not our fault. Its just the cycle of hatred and revenge. This is when the verses of condemning the jews and their actions starting coming down to Muhammad from Allah. One of the verses were revealed during the war through Angel Gabriel,  thats says kill jews wherever you find them. Anti Islamists use these verses to show that muslims are violent towards jews but what they simply ignore is that this verse was revealed when the war was still going on and when you go to war you dont just sit around and wait for the enemy to attack. Thus Allah encouraged the muslims to fight for their just rights and  kill the jews in defense. Saying "kill jews wherever you find them" See now look how the anti Islamists take the verses of quran out of context and use it spread hate false propaganda while the reality and truth is something else. 
6) battle of hunain- the last war he participated in, again nothing new some non Muslim tribes were angry and wanted to fight them. They were scared of the muslims victory in the previous wars so they almost took them by surprise, attacking the muslims in the early mornings. Again we fought in defense. 

Now you tell me how many of the wars were fought in offense? Were the non muslims  forced to convert?  Were the muslims allowed to rape the female war captives?  Does islam really encourage the killings of jews?   

I bet nobody else in your life had told any of you all this that I am telling you  right now 
if Muhammad was really a cruel person then we would not have been his followers


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> AFAIK Mohammad never had a problem with drawings or depictions of himself, so that shitty drawing is plain wrong





Blue said:


> Which raises some interesting questions, first of which being why are people dying in his name for something that never concerned him or the word of god


If I recall correctly, the whole prohibition was started as a hadith something like 50 years or so after his death.

Which makes sense given the context of it being a monotheistic religion trying to convert the pagans of Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Judaism had already had its problems with idolatry and they were seeing Christian veneration of Jesus and didn't want Mohammad to be similarly venerated as that could get in the way of worshiping Allah.

Unfortunately, that backfired spectacularly as tabooing things generally do.


----------



## Narcissus (May 6, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> @seto kaiba I saw you saying in that one thread about australian restaurant or cafe attack (I dont remember what place was attacked) but it was an attack in Australia by one of the Isis men, you said there that you are ok with Christianity because it encourages killing of people. Do you condemn the verses of killing the disbelievers in bible as well?


You're trying to defend the violence of your religion, by demonstrating a double standard. Which is going to fail for several reasons. To begin with, the person you're asking is one of the most vocal critics of Christianity in this section, so you haven't found a double standard.

Next, even if you did, it still would not excuse the verses in Islam. It would only demonstrate that the hypocrite is as biased and delusional as you are.

Both the Christian and Islamic verses that encourage killing are wrong.


> Sexual desires are a human rights so it was permissible to have sex with sex slaves since the husbands of the war captives were killed during wars and woman had no one except her master to have sex with and thats the reason why most of the slave girls didnt demand freedom since they had nowhere to go not even to their relatives homes as almost all the men who participated in war were killed.


Do you seriously think this was an ideal situation? you are trying to present the Muslims as merciful for keeping the women as sex slaves, when the women had nowhere else to go because the Muslims killed their families.

The fact that they didn't demand their own freedom is irrelevant when they had no other options available to them...

You are engaging in some serious mental gymnastics to avoid the criticisms people are raising, and to justify the violence and actions of Muslims.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

Blue said:


> Which raises some interesting questions, first of which being why are people dying in his name for something that never concerned him or the word of god



Because religions "sometimes" come up with stupid rules and some people think it's worth killing for? Nothing new.

My question would rather be, why exploit that stupidity and cause unecessary conflict and death? Just to exercise freedom of speech for the sake of exercising freedom of speech alone? Cause there is no actual value in those drawings and events, at least none that even comes close to matching the harm.

I still wouldn't want to ban them. Just critisize them and call those who support them morons.


----------



## Risyth (May 6, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> @seto kaiba I saw you saying in that one thread about australian restaurant or cafe attack (I dont remember what place was attacked) but it was an attack in Australia by one of the Isis men,* you said there that you are ok with Christianity because it encourages killing of people. *Do you condemn the verses of killing the disbelievers in bible as well?  Moreover half the of the things that you are saying is false. You are saying that Muhammad went to wars to kill people to kill in the name of islam and people were forced to convert thats all wrong. Firstly muslims were the ones who received harsh treatment by the non muslims during the first 10 years of Muhammad's prophethood and as a result they were forced to leave mecca and find a better place to settle their lives now let us look on the list of wars Muhammad participated in and were all of them fought in  offense?
> 1) Battle of badr-first fight,  fought in defense after muslims had settled themselves in medina, the rising number of converts angered the non muslims of the mecca and thus they declared war on the muslims. Muslims achieved the victory in this war the total number of muslims soldiers were 313 whereas non muslim soldiers were over 1000 but our skill in combative techniques and the grace of god  were the factors that helped us gain the victory.
> 2) Battle of uhud- the second war, after the loss in the first war the non muslims wanted revenge and again wanted war with us so we again fought in defense this time the victory was theirs and many of the muslims were killed , injured and prophet suffered severe injuries in this war.
> 3) battle of khandaq-  3rd war, after the converts in khaybar(a city/town) increased, the leader tribe banu nadhir decided to  kill muslims and stop the religion from spreading so they contacted meccans, 20 leaders of the jews and 10 leaders of the quraysh tribe in mecca. Went to war on us again we fought in defense. Muslims won the war after it which it was announced to execute the fighting men including jews. Islam respects people of the book I.e the jews and the christians than the people who worship idols as moses and Jesus are known as prophet in islam. When muslims began settling in khaybar the jews instead of giving equal rights to them allied themselves with the people who practiced idolatry went for war on muslims. Many critics has described this punishment as harsh but what other punishment could be meted out to them. They had violated the pact and instead of helping the muslims, they joined the forces of their enemies and had actually besieged the muslims. There were no prisons where prisoners of war could be detained nor any concentration camps where they could be put to forced labor so we had no choice but to kill the participants of the war except the women and children as Muhammad forbade it to kill them they were taken into custody only after allah allowed them to do so after revealing the verses of slavery which the anti Islamists use it to describe the religion, violent and cruel without even studying the religion properly.  But remember this slavery wasn't the kind of slavery that non muslims engaged into, the slavery of chains or the way the jews and black slaves were treated in the ancient egypt. Islam gave respect to slaves as well and acknowledges them as a human being. The prophet ordered to give slaves, proper food and shelter, treat them nicely, help them in their most difficult tasks and as for the sex with female slaves. It was allowed because it was a human right. Many of the slave girls even married their masters and many slaves converted to islam because of the muslims nice behaviour with them. The children of the slave girls were considered legitimate. But however islam also did not put a fullstop to their important rights. If any slave demands freedom then it was to be granted  to her. If a female slave refused to have sex with her master she was not to be forced as rape is strictly forbidden in islam, if any slave girl has any complain about his master then she can take this case to the islamic court to seek justice. Sexual desires are a human rights so it was permissible to have sex with sex slaves since the husbands of the war captives were killed during wars and woman had no one except her master to have sex with and thats the reason why most of the slave girls didnt demand freedom since they had nowhere to go not even to their relatives homes as almost all the men who participated in war were killed. This is the truth behind islams permission of sex with slaves. How much cruel were the muslims men towards the non muslim women?
> ...


*I know you made that up. 
*


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> If I recall correctly, the whole prohibition was started as a hadith something like 50 years or so after his death.
> 
> Which makes sense given the context of it being a monotheistic religion trying to convert the pagans of Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East.
> 
> ...


That basically contradicts the very idea of religion that everything has god in it and if you want to symbolise something and worship it, it should be okay.  Religious guidelines morphs into strict laws or dogmas over the period of time mostly by people who act as some kind of religious moderator to fulfil their own agenda.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 6, 2015)

Chucky boy,next time you write a big ass response kindly use para.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

ThunderCunt said:


> That basically contradicts the very idea of religion that everything has god in it and if you want to symbolise something and worship it, it should be okay.  Religious guidelines morphs into strict laws or dogmas over the period of time mostly by people who act as some kind of religious moderator to fulfil their own agenda.


Pretty sure that isn't how Islam goes though.

Its not an everything is god relgion. Rather, what they believe there's a sapient God who created the universe and Mohammad is the last of his prophets. So what he said through Mohammad was his final directions to the human race.

Or to put if in other terms, in a game like The Sims, The universe is the rig that you, the god, built and then filled with that program, and through an NPC Mohammad, your last direct commands were entered.

The universe isn't God any more than your battle station is you.


Son of Goku said:


> Because religions "sometimes" come up with stupid rules and some people think it's worth killing for? Nothing new.
> 
> My question would rather be, why exploit that stupidity and cause unecessary conflict and death? Just to exercise freedom of speech for the sake of exercising freedom of speech alone? Cause there is no actual value in those drawings and events, at least none that even comes close to matching the harm.
> 
> I still wouldn't wants to ban them. Just critisize them and call those who support them morons.


Verily. That's free speech man.

Intentionally trolling muslims like the group there did was pretty irresponsible. But its their right to do so.


----------



## ThunderCunt (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Pretty sure that isn't how Islam goes though.
> 
> Its not an everything is god relgion. Rather, what they believe there's a sapient God who created the universe and Mohammad is the last of his prophets. So what he said through Mohammad was his final directions to the human race.
> 
> ...


Well that makes sense if that is what is being taught in Islam. I took a rather generic approach towards the whole thing.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 6, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> @seto kaiba I saw you saying in that one thread about australian restaurant or cafe attack (I dont remember what place was attacked) but it was an attack in Australia by one of the Isis men, you said there that you are ok with Christianity because it encourages killing of people. Do you condemn the verses of killing the disbelievers in bible as well?



I don't know where you got this information, but you've been severely misinformed. I am not a Christian, at least not anymore, and I frequently criticize the atrocious demands the Bible has, of which includes the killing of nonbelievers as all the Abrahamic religions do.



> Moreover half the of the things that you are saying is false. You are saying that Muhammad went to wars to kill people to kill in the name of islam and people were forced to convert thats all wrong. Firstly muslims were the ones who received harsh treatment by the non muslims during the first 10 years of Muhammad's prophethood and as a result they were forced to leave mecca and find a better place to settle their lives now let us look on the list of wars Muhammad participated in and were all of them fought in  offense?



This was the same for Christianity and Judaism, but that doesn't change the brutality they themselves undertook in the name of God.



> 1) Battle of badr-first fight,  fought in defense after muslims had settled themselves in medina, the rising number of converts angered the non muslims of the mecca and thus they declared war on the muslims. Muslims achieved the victory in this war the total number of muslims soldiers were 313 whereas non muslim soldiers were over 1000 but our skill in combative techniques and the grace of god  were the factors that helped us gain the victory.
> 
> 2) Battle of uhud- the second war, after the loss in the first war the non muslims wanted revenge and again wanted war with us so we again fought in defense this time the victory was theirs and many of the muslims were killed , injured and prophet suffered severe injuries in this war.
> 
> ...



This sounds no different from the glorification given to the Jewish tribes in the old Testament. You try to characterize the opposition as being uniformly evil and simply as the unjust aggressors. Many times history says different.

For example, looking up the Battle of Badr:

_Following the Hijra, tensions between Mecca and Medina escalated and hostilities broke out in 623 when the Muslims began a series of raids on Quraishi caravans in order to put economic pressure on Mecca, since its chiefs were plotting and gaining allies against Medina. Since Medina was located just off Mecca's main trade route, the Muslims were in an ideal position to do this. Even though many Muslims were Quraish themselves, they believed that they were entitled to such raids because the Meccans had expelled them from their property, homes and tribes, a serious offense in hospitality-oriented Arabia. The Meccans obviously took a different view. Their caravans had always been under protection since many tribes saw them as the "Custodians" or "Keepers" of "The House of God" and they saw the Muslim raids as banditry at best, as well as a potential threat to their livelihood and prestige_

Going further back to other battles, and a history of raids that Muhammad led, this sounds very much like a case of mutual hostilities. Very easily one can say, he was the aggressor just as many times as he may not have been.



> But remember this slavery wasn't the kind of slavery that non muslims engaged into, the slavery of chains or the way the jews and black slaves were treated in the ancient egypt. Islam gave respect to slaves as well and acknowledges them as a human being. The prophet ordered to give slaves, proper food and shelter, treat them nicely, help them in their most difficult tasks and as for the sex with female slaves. It was allowed because it was a human right. Many of the slave girls even married their masters and many slaves converted to islam because of the muslims nice behaviour with them. The children of the slave girls were considered legitimate.



How can you truly treat human people that you take ownership of?



> But however islam also did not put a fullstop to their important rights. If any slave demands freedom then it was to be granted  to her. If a female slave refused to have sex with her master she was not to be forced as rape is strictly forbidden in islam, if any slave girl has any complain about his master then she can take this case to the islamic court to seek justice. Sexual desires are a human rights so it was permissible to have sex with sex slaves since the husbands of the war captives were killed during wars and woman had no one except her master to have sex with and thats the reason why most of the slave girls didnt demand freedom since they had nowhere to go not even to their relatives homes as almost all the men who participated in war were killed. This is the truth behind islams permission of sex with slaves. How much cruel were the muslims men towards the non muslim women?



In Islam, it is also said that a woman be silent under authority of a man and on top of that that a woman's silence is her consent? You do not see the problem here?

I think what's worse here is you are trying to rationalize slavery as being not so bad as it pertains to Islam. You don't see how such apologetics lead to the violent radicalism that is present today? 



> Islam is giving all kinds of rights to the female war captives,  what actions do you think has been harmful to humanity. Many historical figures from the west kept concubines and gave them the exact opposite treatment of the muslims. I dont see anything wrong with having sex with the sex slaves, the way islam has alllowed us to do. Furthermore it is important to note this only applies to the war captives, not some random female whom you can buy from the streets, which is still happening in this world including the west. LIAM NEESON' S TAKEN movie explains that very well. That kind of slavery is prohibited in islam.



This is absolutely atrocious. Yes, the west did horrific things in the sum of their history that does not change anything about the horrific acts that Mohammed and his followers took part in. I mean "I don't see anything wrong with having sex with sex SLAVES"? Come on. They are/were war captives.



> 4) battle of khaibar- again upon discovering about the loss of jews, the jews of other regions of the saudi arabia wanted to avenge their lost brothers. Again this is not our fault. Its just the cycle of hatred and revenge. This is when the verses of condemning the jews and their actions starting coming down to Muhammad from Allah. One of the verses were revealed during the war through Angel Gabriel,  thats says kill jews wherever you find them. Anti Islamists use these verses to show that muslims are violent towards jews but what they simply ignore is that this verse was revealed when the war was still going on and when you go to war you dont just sit around and wait for the enemy to attack. Thus Allah encouraged the muslims to fight for their just rights and  kill the jews in defense. Saying "kill jews wherever you find them" See now look how the anti Islamists take the verses of quran out of context and use it spread hate false propaganda while the reality and truth is something else.
> 
> 6) battle of hunain- the last war he participated in, again nothing new some non Muslim tribes were angry and wanted to fight them. They were scared of the muslims victory in the previous wars so they almost took them by surprise, attacking the muslims in the early mornings. Again we fought in defense.



Refer to my previous point that these battles seem just as much a case as reacting to hostile action as much as being a result of acting in hostility themselves. Just looking at the history of these battles, they all are clearly a case of a matter of mutual conflict snowballing into even bigger battles over time.



> Now you tell me how many of the wars were fought in offense? Were the non muslims  forced to convert?  Were the muslims allowed to rape the female war captives?  Does islam really encourage the killings of jews?



The issue here is you are citing directly from a source that has every reason to place Muslims and Mohammed in a favorable light. Just look at the wording you used to describe their victories, as if it was a divine mandate, and characterizing that all attacks did not at least involve a mutual degree of instigation. 



> I bet nobody else in your life had told any of you all this that I am telling you  right now



They have.



> if Muhammad was really a cruel person then we would not have been his followers



No, that just means you blind yourself to his faults or in some cases with extremists seek to follow him to the letter, revealing in turn how faulty an individual he was.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> If I recall correctly, the whole prohibition was started as a hadith something like 50 years or so after his death.



And yet:



> *Drawing the prophet: Islam?s hidden history of Muhammad images
> 
> Ban on depictions has not always been absolute ? Islam has a rich heritage of images and icons dating back to the 13th century*
> 
> ...


for more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/10/drawing-prophet-islam-muhammad-images


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

Most of those were Persia and/or Shia though.

Where they didn't particularly give a darn.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> AFAIK Mohammad never had a problem with drawings or depictions of himself, so that shitty drawing is plain wrong.



Islamic literature suggests that Mohammad did in fact have a problem with drawings and depictions in general let alone drawings and depictions of himself.

Not really surprised that the symbolism in the drawing went right over your head. It doesn't matter if Mohammad himself didn't have a problem with it, a huge amount of Muslims do have a problem with it and the point is that those people have no right telling an artist or whomever to not draw something. Exhibits like these provide an important function in society especially due to the current political climate. I hope these take place more often. I don't care about appeasing people's ridiculous sensitivities.


----------



## Yahiko (May 6, 2015)

Narcissus said:


> You're trying to defend the violence of your religion, by demonstrating a double standard. Which is going to fail for several reasons. To begin with, the person you're asking is one of the most vocal critics of Christianity in this section, so you haven't found a double standard.
> 
> Next, even if you did, it still would not excuse the verses in Islam. It would only demonstrate that the hypocrite is as biased and delusional as you are.
> 
> Both the Christian and Islamic verses that encourage killing are wrong.


sorry i dont know much about him but I do recall seeing him saying in that thread that he was ok with the christians but have problem with islam. 


> Do you seriously think this was an ideal situation? you are trying to present the Muslims as merciful for keeping the women as sex slaves, when the women had nowhere else to go because the Muslims killed their families.
> 
> The fact that they didn't demand their own freedom is irrelevant when they had no other options available to them...
> 
> You are engaging in some serious mental gymnastics to avoid the criticisms people are raising, and to justify the violence and actions of Muslims.


yes this was the situation , how can I have doubts about this when I have enough proof to accept the reality of the situation. We have enough proof to say that islam is truly a religion of peace and doesn't encourage harsh treatment with any human beings. Like for example 
the prophet has stipulated in his last pilgrimage speech,
"And your slaves!  See that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented"
Source:Ibn sa'd , op.cit., hadith vol.2:1 , pg 133 

"Serve God, and join not any partners with Him ; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours ?who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet), And what your right hands possess : for God loveth not the arrogant, the ?vainglorious" Surah An Nisa, verse 36

The phrase "What your right hands possess" refers to one?s slaves (male and female). Allah swt ordains the kind treatment of slaves in the same verse where He commands man to worship Him and to treat his parents, relations and neighbours generously, and this signifies the importance of this ruling.
Why do you think  the men had treated them harshly? Please this is not like the west. why do you think muslims are non merciful for keeping the slaves, I already told you that there was no sort of prison any where around where the prisoners could be detained nor any training camps where they could be put to forced labor. We had no choice but to kill the men and take women into custody but then I already told you the kind of  slavery muslims practiced and the rules on slaves.The slaves were to be treated like wives. There children would be considered legitimate. They were not to be raped if they refused to have sex with their master,, islam forbids rape , they could file any complaint against their masters in the court,  they could demand freedom  and were to be granted which they didn't do ofcourse they had no choice. Their men were killed in war but it wasnt our fault. 
> They waged war on us 
> We fought in defense 
> Their men were killed, our men were killed too but the victory was ours. 
There are a lot incidents and stories from the hadith that tells us that many of the slaves accepted islam on their own will because of the muslims nice treatment with them. I cant even think for a second that muslims treated slaves harshly, when this is not allowed in islam. We have the hadith and verses of the quran as our proofs.  



Risyth said:


> *I know you made that up.
> *


Thats pathetic you know. You are willing to agree with everything about islam that comes from the media, news, terrorist groups and evil people and you are disagreeing with a moderate practicing muslim who knows much more knowledge about islam than anyone else here. Moron, this is the truth,  this is the history, its written in the books,  do some research. I am not making up things on my own


----------



## Risyth (May 6, 2015)

*How do you know what I agree with?

...and that has literally nothing to do with what I bolded.... *


----------



## Sherlōck (May 6, 2015)

I don't think he understood that your reply was directed towards the bolded part of his post.


----------



## Risyth (May 6, 2015)

*This site is full of crazies.  *


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I hope these take place more often.



To what end?


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

Can someone summarize Chucky's post?

That wall of text looks dreadful.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Can someone summarize Chucky's post?
> 
> That wall of text looks dreadful.



:absolutelyharam

ur welcome 

rep me


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

Risyth said:


> *
> ...and that has literally nothing to do with what I bolded.... *





Risyth said:


> *This site is full of crazies.  *



Well you could have made it easier for him to understand by deleting the stuff in his post you weren't replying to, instead of quoting the whole thing for one sentence.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I hope these take place more often.





Son of Goku said:


> To what end?


There is a somewhat valid point to that: Desensitization

If Muhammad depictions become a more common thing, it'd be much harder for huge mobs to be get their panties in a twist over. Huge proportions of people will still be pissed about it. But eventually a lot more would stop caring.

Its kinda like how here in the west it was big news of OMG! THEY'RE SAYING DEATH TO AMERICA AND BURNING OUR FLAG!!!!11

Now its like oh that? Yeah, that's kinda the usual. Yawn. Muslims gonna muslim.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

WAD said:


> :absolutelyharam
> 
> ur welcome
> 
> rep me


You're 'd


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> There is a somewhat valid point to that: Desensitization
> 
> If Muhammad depictions become a more common thing, it'd be much harder for huge mobs to be get their panties in a twist over. Huge proportions of people will still be pissed about it. But eventually a lot would stop caring.



A lot already don't care much. But there will always be a few that will care too much.

And desensitization may sound nice and might even work a couple of deacades down the line. But at what cost and for what gain? Just so people can draw some religious figure in an offensive manner without triggering an attack by crazies?



> Its kinda like how here in the west it was big news of OMG! THEYRE SAYING *DEATH TO AMERICA AND BURNING OUR FLAG.*
> 
> Now its like oh that? Yeah, that's kinda the usual. Yawn.



Is it though? US (and Israeli) hardliners still use *that* to rile people up and call for sanctions or military action. Israeli hardliners also show no signs of desensitization to Hamas' charta after almost 30 years.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> A lot already don't care much. But there will always be a few that will care too much.
> 
> And desensitization may sound nice and might even work a couple of deacades down the line. But at what cost and for what gain? Just so people can draw some religious figure in an offensive manner without triggering an attack by crazies?
> 
> ...


Yeah but that only really has effect within their own circle jerk.


----------



## Yahiko (May 6, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I don't know where you got this information, but you've been severely misinformed. I am not a Christian, at least not anymore, and I frequently criticize the atrocious demands the Bible has, of which includes the killing of nonbelievers as all the Abrahamic religions do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


many times history says different,  and ofcourse one could say that he was the aggressive person and others say he is innocent. But the only way we could know about the truth is by researching from the most reliable sources 
Remember there are different sects of islam and everyone has different kinds of information.  Sunni is the main islam since 80-90 % of the muslims in the world are sunnis.  Checking authenticity of hadith needs expertise and it is not a simple matter that one can do on himself/herself so a non-expert should be very careful in stating and using hadith. There is an Islamic science that studies hadith and their authenticity and it is dependent on several other Islamic sciences.

Hadithes are historical documents. The way to check the authenticity of a hadith is similar to the way of checking for the authenticity of other historical documents. A major difference is that many hadith has been preserved orally and not in a written form at least for the early centuries so there is no written document dating back to the original time the hadith has been stated. But still some means of checking authenticity of documents still apply, for example existence of multiple independent lines of narration from the source increases the confidence in the authenticity. Usually the persons who have narrated the hadith are also important for confidence.

Another basic rule for checking authenticity is that hadith should not contradict what is said in Quran so one also needs to be knowledgeable in Quran and its interpretation which is again a non-trivial Islamic science.

There are several major collections of hadith. Some of these are solely collection of all hadith that the author was aware of without vetting for authenticity (the main reason making all claimed hadith available for experts without bias). Others are collections where various amounts of vetting is performed. There are some hadith collection which are considered more reliable (though even in those books you may find contradictory hadith).

Shia and Sunni often have different collections because they consider different people in Islam to be reliable sources of hadith, e.g. Shia do not consider a person a reliable source simply because he or she was a companion of the prophet. In cases where there are contradictory hadith (and historically we know there were because of internal wars between Muslims not long after the prophet has passed) one needs to either choose a source to rely on and reject the other or possibly accept only those hadith which are agreed on by all sides.

The Sunni consider the following collections as reliable:

Sahih Bukhari by Imam Bukhari,
Sahih Muslim by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875),
Sunan al-Sughra by al-Nasa'i,
Sunan Abu Dawood by Abu Dawood,
Jami al-Tirmidhi by al-Tirmidhi,
Sunan ibn Majah by Ibn Majah.
On the other hand Shia consider the following collections as reliable:

Kitab al-Kafi by Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni al-Razi,
Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih by Muhammad ibn Babuya,
Al-Tahdhib and Al-Istibsar by Shaykh Muhammad Tusi.

So make sure to know the source of information you are getting from and make sure its confirmed since the information you know and were told about islam is quite opppsite of what I know and what I was told. There many narrations of the hadith that are considered untrustworthy for various reasons, like if the narrator is said to be not reliable enough to learn islam from because there is a chance of lacking knowledge of hadith,  we can know about this by judging his/historical background.


> How can you truly treat human people that you take ownership of?


you can treat them with respect and kindness, it depends on the type of person who takes ownership.[/QUOTE] 


> In Islam, it is also said that a woman be silent under authority of a man and on top of that that a woman's silence is her consent? You do not see the problem here?


What is the source of this information.  What I know is that a woman can speak even under the authority of a man. Its her right 


> I think what's worse here is you are trying to rationalize slavery as being not so bad as it pertains to Islam. You don't see how such apologetics lead to the violent radicalism that is present today?


its is not so bad the way it is practiced in islam. 
Radicalism can be avoided if one gets the correct the information and doesnt misuse any context. Isis for example, they are misusing the quranic verses. they are forcing yazidi women into slavery when forcing is prohibited in islam. The women should be granted the freedom if they demand but isis are doing the opposite. In other words they are doing something haram in islam. They refuse to seek true knowledge and rulings but again this is not a religion's fault. Since human beings are the ones who divided themselves into different groups with different beliefs and context.  




> This is absolutely atrocious. Yes, the west did horrific things in the sum of their history that does not change anything about the horrific acts that Mohammed and his followers took part in. I mean "I don't see anything wrong with having sex with sex SLAVES"? Come on. They are/were war captives.



 if the war captives are brought to the owner's home, provided proper food, shelter, clothes,  gets treated with kindness and respect. Does that harms humanity? No then there is nothing wrong with it. What do you think the muslims should've done with the women and children of the deceased ones. And there is no need to hate islam for this as this thing stop being relevant as time passed. No normal muslim keeps sex slaves now


> They have.


are you sure they were 100% correct with their information,  were they scholars or imam of the mosque? [/QUOTE] 



> No, that just means you blind yourself to his faults or in some cases with extremists seek to follow him to the letter, revealing in turn how faulty an individual he was.


we moderate mulims from 1.6 billion know the reality and the truth of islam and Muhammad. further we can't/wont leave islam just because some false rumours and information were spread by the anti islamists since the origin of the religion. We also know that every prophet including moses and jesus received the same kind of treatment by the disbelievers  as muhammad and Christianity is also treated the same way islam is by the anti religious people .anti religious people have always tried to spread false information and from the history.


----------



## Yahiko (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Can someone summarize Chucky's post?
> 
> That wall of text looks dreadful.



It doesnt takes a lot of time to read unless you are too lazy for that.


----------



## baconbits (May 6, 2015)

ShibiShiba said:


> If Chalie Hebdo shooting isn't proof enough that an event like this is provocative, then I don't know what does.



First, there's nothing wrong with being provocative.  Second, the fact that radicals were provoked does not prove that the event itself was designed to provoke them.  I personally have no issue with provoking radicals, if for nothing else but to show we shouldn't be intimidated by their idiocy.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 6, 2015)

baconbits said:


> First, there's nothing wrong with being provocative.  Second, the fact that radicals were provoked does not prove that the event itself was designed to provoke them.  I personally have no issue with provoking radicals, if for nothing else but to show we shouldn't be intimidated by their idiocy.



Exactly.  And even if the event was designed to provoke them, so what?

If cartoons can provoke you into physical violence against innocent people then you're the one that has the problem and you NEED to be provoked so we can highlight who those people are and start combating that level of radicalization.

There are plenty of muslims in the world who would find the pictures offensive but not resort to violence, and probably even some who probably wouldn't care at all.

I see no reason the rest of the world should censor itself to protect the feelings of an overly sensitive group of people.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yeah but that only really has effect within their own circle jerk.



I'm afraid not.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I see no reason the rest of the world should censor itself to protect the feelings of an overly sensitive group of people.



Are you censoring yourself when you don't tell your neighbour, who you don't like, that he's fat? Or are you just avoiding a conflict over nothing?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Are you censoring yourself when you don't tell your neighbour, who you don't like, that he's fat? Or are you just avoiding a conflict over nothing?



I'm not consciously censoring myself, its just not something it would occur to me to say.

Should I feel the need to say it though I can, it doesn't give him the right to physically attack me.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Of course not. But that doesn't make your offense any smarter or anything you should be applauded for.



Who is saying you should be applauded for being offensive?

Being purposefully rude to anyone is unwise, this is no different than that except in the fact that these people are resorting to physical violence.

I actually think this kind of thing is important to do, it is sparking a conversation that needs to be had, especially among the muslim community.


----------



## Alita (May 6, 2015)

ExoSkel said:


> Drawing Mohammad is considered insulting all muslims?


If it's drawn in a offensive matter as was done with the people in the hate group I'm certain it would be.

The group that organized this event is a HATE group dude. This wasn't done to promote freedom of speech, it was done to bash and make fun of muslims and their religion.


----------



## ExoSkel (May 6, 2015)

Alita54 said:


> If it's drawn in a offensive matter as was done with the people in the hate group I'm certain it would be.
> 
> The group that organized this event is a HATE group dude. This wasn't done to promote freedom of speech, it was done to bash and make fun of muslims and their religion.


Who gives a flying fuck? Let them make fun about that shitty religion. I wouldn't bet an eye if another group makes fun of other religion. 

If they want to shoot up a place just because they are offended by it, then by all means, it's a free country. Bunch of fuckwits...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 6, 2015)

Alita54 said:


> If it's drawn in a offensive matter as was done with the people in the hate group I'm certain it would be.
> 
> The group that organized this event is a HATE group dude. This wasn't done to promote freedom of speech, it was done to bash and make fun of muslims and their religion.



Maybe some Muslims need to do the adult thing and ignore it or fight their battles with words. They want to murder people over drawings.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (May 6, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> To what end?



To instill in the minds of the opposition that their laws and beliefs do not apply to those that belong to different groups. Why are you acting like this is some kind of outlier when we've seen freedom of speech infringed upon multiple times. A plethora of Islamic apostates have been killed because they chose to have a different belief and voiced their opposition to the status quo. Rushdie needs police outside of his home for protection. Just a few years back, buildings were burned and riots took place because people from another country chose to publish cartoons in their newspapers. Some random joe in America makes a video on the prophet and all hell breaks loose. South Park puts the prophet in a teddy bear and the producers and writers get death threats. 

DOZENS of leaders representing Islamic countries have gone to the United Nations to ask them to OUTLAW BLASPHEMY across the entire world.

Don't give me this bullshit about "durr a lot don't care, only a few do." Freedom of speech is clearly something that many Muslims across the world have a problem with.

And your great answer to all of this is: "Hey guys, just appease them."

Yeah fuck that, I hope exhibits like this become widespread so they learn that their religion and beliefs aren't anymore immune to criticism than any other belief or religion out there. 



			
				Alita54 said:
			
		

> The group that organized this event is a HATE group dude. *This wasn't done to promote freedom of speech, it was done to bash and make fun of muslims and their religion.*



Why do people act like the two are mutually exclusive?  I'm not for nonsensical bashing of any group or people but the purpose of this was not solely to make fun of Muslims. The winning cartoon was one that clearly promoted freedom of speech as opposed to being offensive and obscene for the sake of being offensive and obscene.


----------



## jinjue (May 6, 2015)

Alita54 said:


> The group that organized this event is a HATE group dude.


In the US, at least, they have every right to be hateful.  Thought crimes aren't real crimes, and hopefully it stays that way.



Alita54 said:


> This wasn't done to promote freedom of speech,


That may be, but they're _practicing_ their right to it all the same.



Alita54 said:


> it was done to bash and make fun of muslims and their religion.


And being made fun of means they're allowed to respond with extreme violence?

It's disproportionate bullshit.  People are dying over some crudely drawn cartoons and instead of acknowledging it as the irrational nonsense that it is, we're too busy trying to give Muslims the super special right of "not being mocked".

Get fucked with that.  Everything can be made fun of, even Muslims and Islam, and no one deserves to die for it.


----------



## NeoTerraKnight (May 6, 2015)

jinjue said:


> In the US, at least, they have every right to be hateful.  Thought crimes aren't real crimes, and hopefully it stays that way.
> 
> 
> That may be, but they're _practicing_ their right to it all the same.
> ...



Of course not. But would anyone miss Pamela Geller for what she did? Hell no. Spew hate and you'll get hurt by the hate you brought out just to prove your point. In other words, karma's a bitch. The reason people make fun of conservatives because they don't actually follow Jesus.

Seriously, Pamela Geller is the equivalent of the bully who tries to make herself sympathetic after all the bad things she done.


----------



## Mr. Black Leg (May 6, 2015)

They thought this was going to fly in the state where guns have guns ? Seriously I am surprised they weren't killed by some hard pipe-hittin' christians .


----------



## jinjue (May 6, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> Spew hate and you'll get hurt by the hate you brought out just to prove your point. In other words, Muslims are over-sensitive, self-centred babies who are incapable of acting like rational adults.


FTFY.

Because, again, violence is not a reasonable response to being offended.  Appeasing them out of fear is just kowtowing to their terror tactics and no one, no matter how disgusting or horrible their opinions, deserves to die just because they hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## N120 (May 6, 2015)

jinjue said:


> FTFY.
> 
> Because, again, violence is not a reasonable response to being offended.  Appeasing them out of fear is just kowtowing to their terror tactics and no one, no matter how disgusting or horrible their opinions, deserves to die just because they hurt someone's feelings.



As of yet, no one in this thread has advocated violence. Where do people find these arguments?

bigots are entitled to hold whatever views they like and people are free to oppose those views.

The use of Violence is illegal, and no one has campaigned to make it legal nor has anyone argued in favour of it. It's a bit of a red herring to peddle that argument.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 6, 2015)

heavy_rasengan said:


> To instill in the minds of the opposition that their laws and beliefs do not apply to those that belong to different groups. Why are you acting like this is some kind of outlier when we've seen freedom of speech infringed upon multiple times. A plethora of Islamic apostates have been killed because they chose to have a different belief and voiced their opposition to the status quo. Rushdie needs police outside of his home for protection. Just a few years back, buildings were burned and riots took place because people from another country chose to publish cartoons in their newspapers. Some random joe in America makes a video on the prophet and all hell breaks loose. South Park puts the prophet in a teddy bear and the producers and writers get death threats.
> 
> DOZENS of leaders representing Islamic countries have gone to the United Nations to ask them to OUTLAW BLASPHEMY across the entire world.
> 
> ...



That's pretty dumb, Geert. 

Pouring oil in to a fire just to show "them" it can be done? Yeah dumb as fuck. 

And don't conflate Salman Rushdie with Pamela Geller. That's even dumber.

Also: It's not called appeasing if you simply choose to not insult a group of people just for the kicks, especially in times where your group and their's are already at odds. It's called being level-headed and constructive. In contrast to being close-minded and destructive.




N120 said:


> As of yet, no one in this thread has advocated violence. Where do people find these arguments?



That's what I'd like to know too.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 7, 2015)

NeoTerraKnight said:


> Of course not. But would anyone miss Pamela Geller for what she did? Hell no.



Someone would probably have missed the security guards who fired at.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 7, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> That's pretty dumb, Geert.
> 
> Pouring oil in to a fire just to show "them" it can be done? Yeah dumb as fuck.
> 
> ...


It doesn't matter if you're advocating violence, the fact that we're mentioning what a bunch of trolls did in relation to attempted murder is pretty fucking bad.

It would be like if a meter maid shot a man for letting his time on the meter run out. You wouldn't see people in here complaining about how it's partially his fault for not watching the clock.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 7, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It doesn't matter if you're advocating violence, the fact that we're mentioning what a bunch of trolls did in relation to attempted murder is pretty fucking bad.
> 
> It would be like if a meter maid shot a man for letting his time on the meter run out. You wouldn't see people in here complaining about how it's partially his fault for not watching the clock.



If he knew about the meter maid's short temper, the fact that she carriers around a gun and her history of shooting offenders? Damn straight he's partially responsible for what happens to him if he intentionally let's the meter run out. But that's a bad analogy and misses the point.

The point is that Pamela Geller and these events accomplish nothing but generate more hate, on BOTH sides. We're not giving up any freedoms, just because we choose not to advocate hate against Islam and by extension muslims. Exercising all freedoms is our right, but we have to decide when they are worth excercising and when not.
Which btw we do all the time. But how dare anyone suggest we do it in the context of evil Islam.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (May 7, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> That's pretty dumb, Geert.
> 
> Pouring oil in to a fire just to show "them" it can be done? Yeah dumb as fuck.
> 
> ...



You sound like one of those cowards that would tell African-American right groups not to protest for their rights because the KKK would incite violence in response. In fact, I bet if we went back in time, you'd be making that exact same argument.

When did I conflate Salman Rushdie with Pamela Geller? I used the former as an example. By your logic, you must also find it "pretty dumb" for an author like Rushdie to criticize Islam in his literature right? 

It's called appeasing when you withhold your right to do something because you fear a violent reaction.



			
				Son of Goku said:
			
		

> Exercising all freedoms is our right, but we have to decide when they are worth excercising and when not.



When they are "worth" excercising is something subjective and depends on the values of the person. Lol @ trying to objectify his own personal nuances.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 7, 2015)

Chucky181 said:


> -owned the ignorant anti-theist-





Chucky181 said:


> -SK is empty handed-



I'm still waiting for SK and the other guy to make a reply to Chucky, maybe now they'll realize how living life on the edge is a bad thing.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 7, 2015)

If the left is so terrified of offending Muslims they better cancel those gay pride parades fast.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 7, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> If the left is so terrified of offending Muslims they better cancel those gay pride parades fast.


There's a difference between passive offending vs active offending lol.

When its the former, the opinion of the offended doesn't particularly matter. Who gives a shit, it wasn't intended for you. In the latter, its basically the same as internet trolling.

Its like a bakery getting upset over just a random gay couple wanting to buy cakes vs gay activists going to said bakery and holding makeout sessions inside.

In the case of the latter, you're the one who is being a dick.


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

im not sure why the left needs to insult anyone When They can have their disagreements and argue it cohesively. The right too. People like geller are pretty much representing voices on the fringes which pretty much cling on to the edges of the political scale.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (May 7, 2015)

The Handsome Klad said:


> I'm still waiting for SK and the other guy to make a reply to Chucky, maybe now they'll realize how living life on the edge is a bad thing.



Lmao only a retard like yourself would actually believe that Chucky put forth convincing arguments. Why don't you visit the Islamic debate thread, Muslims far more knowledgeable than that buffoon have been put down.


----------



## baconbits (May 7, 2015)

N120 said:


> im not sure why the left needs to insult anyone When They can have their disagreements and argue it cohesively. The right too. People like geller are pretty much representing voices on the fringes which pretty much cling on to the edges of the political scale.



You're buying into the radical narrative.  The fact that you think this event is an insult is a result of you simply accepting, without argument, that any depiction of Mohammed is insulting.  I don't accept that and neither should you.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 7, 2015)

baconbits said:


> You're buying into the radical narrative.  The fact that you think this event is an insult is a result of you simply accepting, without argument, that any depiction of Mohammed is insulting.  I don't accept that and neither should you.


Well the event itself was bait.

Both the trolls and those who took the bait are worthy of condemnation.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 7, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Well the event itself was bait.
> 
> Both the trolls and those who took the bait are worthy of condemnation.



This, I only replied to this to poke fun of the anti-theists and see what kind of arguments they were going to pull. Glorious as always.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 7, 2015)

Let's compromise. Muslims who overreact are douchebags and people who draw Muhammad are also douchebags.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 7, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Let's compromise. Muslims who overreact are douchebags and people who draw Muhammad are also douchebags.



No, because one side killed people.


----------



## Deputy Myself (May 7, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, because one side killed people.



but it was the pissed off muslims that got killed


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 7, 2015)

Deputy Myself said:


> but it was the pissed off muslims that got killed



This isn't the first time this has happened and plenty of innocent people have been killed in the past, be it Charlie Hebdo or the danish cartoonists.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 7, 2015)

Deputy Myself said:


> but it was the pissed off muslims that got killed



As a consequence of self-defense against their assault. If you want to be semantic then, one side murdered people and tries to murder many more. The other is just drawing pictures at the end of the day.


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

baconbits said:


> You're buying into the radical narrative.  The fact that you think this event is an insult is a result of you simply accepting, without argument, that any depiction of Mohammed is insulting.  I don't accept that and neither should you.



People have done a terrible job arguing in favour of it so far, and I see no benefit of it from any angle other than to, as sunuvmann put it 'bait the crowd'.

As for opposing the events. Do you expect Muslims or any other sensible person to promote hate campaigns, islamophobia and target an already marginalised communit specifically for being Muslims, and nothing else?  I would be radical if I did.

If I don't have a problem with you, why would I go out of my way to create a conflict between us? I can do it, but I see no point in it. And this is what it boils down to, a pointless act driven by ego and hate and it exposes them for what they really are.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 7, 2015)

N120 said:


> People have done a terrible job arguing in favour of it so far, and I see no benefit of it from any angle other than to, as sunuvmann put it 'bait the crowd'.



If nothing else it provokes a discussion.  Asking questions like "Why shouldn't we draw this?" not just in the non-muslim community either.  There are lots of muslims out there who even though they may not like it aren't bothered enough to do anything about it.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 7, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, because one side killed people.



Well, sure, but that doesn't make the other side not douchebags. It just makes the one side bigger douchebags.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 7, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, because one side killed people.



Because going out your way to piss off a group isn't being an asshole.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 7, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Well, sure, but that doesn't make the other side not douchebags. It just makes the one side bigger douchebags.



That is severely downplaying terrorist acts by characterizing it as merely being a douchebag.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 7, 2015)

Subject of discussion: both sides suck.

The relative amount of suckery, re: terrorist acts, is not significant.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 7, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, because one side killed people.


Oh no, the ones who tried to kill are of course monumentally bigger douchebags.

But those trolls are also pretty much douchebags as well. Different scale of course. But still douchebags.

But take the pastor who wanted to burn korans.

Were the muslims who rioted over that and got people killed assholes? You betcha.

But was that pastor also an asshole? Most definitely.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 7, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, because one side killed people.



This is one of the lousiest excuse I heard all day. 

The other side isn't asshole cause one side is terrorist? They are both asshole,one side is just bigger asshole. Those terrorists action doesn't absolve that group from spreading hate.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 7, 2015)

I'm not sure what point the people saying "well the people who did the show were douchebags too" are trying to make.

If I call someone fat and he murders me and my entire family, and you going to say "Well, you did call him fat"?


----------



## Sherlōck (May 7, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I'm not sure what point the people saying "well the people who did the show were douchebags too" are trying to make.
> 
> If I call someone fat and he murders me and my entire family, and you going to say "Well, you did call him fat"?



No.

We will definitely call you an asshole & call that fat guy a murderer & ask for capital punishment for him.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 7, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> No.
> 
> We will definitely call you an asshole & call that fat guy a murderer & ask for capital punishment for him.



Ok, you called them assholes.  Now what?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 7, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> This is one of the lousiest excuse I heard all day.
> 
> The other side isn't asshole cause one side is terrorist? They are both asshole,one side is just bigger asshole. Those terrorists action doesn't absolve that group from spreading hate.



More like one side isn't relevant to the discussion because the other side is trying to murder people. The fact that people are even bringing up "mocking through drawings" in a discussion where heavily armed men plotted to kill people for offending them is shocking. 

It just goes to show more than any other group or subculture the Muslims are used to be coddled and there are people here willing to coddle them.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 7, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok, you called them assholes.Now what?



Now,I will go & eat popcorn while watching Avengers.


----------



## Hozukimaru (May 7, 2015)

The police did a great job here.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 7, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> More like one side isn't relevant to the discussion because the other side is trying to murder people.



Yet they should be.They should be subjected to criticism for spreading hate,discrimination.

For a moment,think the terrorist act didn't happen,think it wasn't directed towards Muslim.Just a typical hate group spreading hate. Would you still support a group that spreads hate/discrimination? 

An action that spread hate should be condemned. A group that spread hate should be condemned no matter who it was directed to.

No one is advocating to take away their freedom of speech.I will be the first one in the barricade if someone tries to do so.But they better be prepared for criticism the moment they start to spread hate & discrimination. 



> It just goes to show more than any other group or subculture the Muslims are used to be coddled and there are people here willing to coddle them.



It shows some people don't like other people spreading hate,discrimination.I would argue same for black,jew,hindu,christian or anyone subjected to these kind of action.

Anyway way too much time was spent on this thread. Time to give this topic a rest.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 7, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> Yet they should be.They should be subjected to criticism for spreading hate,discrimination.
> 
> For a moment,think the terrorist act didn't happen,think it wasn't directed towards Muslim.Just a typical hate group spreading hate. Would you still support a group that spreads hate/discrimination?
> 
> ...



Except for you know if two black guys went and just shot up a Klan meeting there would be a lot less of an understanding tone to this shit. People have gotten used to treating Muslims like they're never responsible for their own actions, even when their actions are in response to stupid shit like you tube videos (lets kill people in this embassy) or drawings (let's kill people at the newspaper). 

The dumbest part is that all of these reactions just prove the point of the people you're claiming are discriminating so badly. It's not like we're just talking about someone saying something bigoted and someone arguing back, they're literally acting out the violence that people claim is such a part of their religion.


----------



## baconbits (May 7, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Well the event itself was bait.
> 
> Both the trolls and those who took the bait are worthy of condemnation.



No, they aren't.  The so called "trolls" are making a legitimate point: extremists are trying to limit our legitimate freedom of expression.  This event only highlighted that argument.

Those who "took the bait" are the only bad actors.



N120 said:


> People have done a terrible job arguing in favour of it so far, and I see no benefit of it from any angle other than to, as sunuvmann put it 'bait the crowd'.



Its free expression.  Perhaps in the Islamic world this is an alien concept but in America you don't necessarily need a good reason to employ self expression.  Furthermore I would argue that this is a good reason: you're using free expression to defy those who would limit it for their own evil ends.



N120 said:


> As for opposing the events. Do you expect Muslims or any other sensible person to promote hate campaigns, islamophobia and target an already marginalised communit specifically for being Muslims, and nothing else?  I would be radical if I did.



This is already done on a regular basis, so your hypothetical is actually reality.

But let's limit this to "sensible people".  Sensible people stand up for freedom.  Any time you have a group saying "we'll kill whoever says things we don't like" they ought to be defied.



N120 said:


> If I don't have a problem with you, why would I go out of my way to create a conflict between us? I can do it, but I see no point in it. And this is what it boils down to, a pointless act driven by ego and hate and it exposes them for what they really are.



You're presuming the motivation is hate.  Looking up the event I see they consider themselves to be fighting for freedom.  If we allow fear of these radicals to limit our freedoms we may as well not have those freedoms at all.


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Except for you know if two black guys went and just shot up a Klan meeting there would be a lot less of an understanding tone to this shit. People have gotten used to treating Muslims like they're never responsible for their own actions, even when their actions are in response to stupid shit like you tube videos (lets kill people in this embassy) or drawings (let's kill people at the newspaper).
> 
> The dumbest part is that all of these reactions just prove the point of the people you're claiming are discriminating so badly. It's not like we're just talking about someone saying something bigoted and someone arguing back, they're literally acting out the violence that people claim is such a part of their religion.



I'm not sure what gave you that impression, all these laws,institutions and funded think tanks/organisations weren't drawn up to absolve Muslims of actions taken by the few, rather they were created to build a huge net to catch every Muslim for their thoughts,speech and actions, pratically anything the govt doesn't agree with.

to top that, we are also going through a period where islamophobia is spreading and in many cases out in the open. Muslims aren't allowed to open mosques near ground zero, to criticise FP, to hold govt positions, etc etc without being attacked...

In all these cases we are to make exceptions, to ooh and aaaah, make concessions for the good of the wider community, Please. Attack Muslim sensibilities however and its LOL. 

Somewhere in the background some donut will shout out "freedom of speech" and follow it through with a high five.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 7, 2015)

It's a lose lose situation.

Extremists overreact to thing, so protestors do thing even more, making the extremists overreact to thing, making protestors do thing more.

What is this supposed to accomplish exactly?

There's a difference between exercising your right to free speech and going out of your way to provoke a reaction.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 7, 2015)

N120 said:


> I'm not sure what gave you that impression, all these laws,institutions and funded think tanks/organisations weren't drawn up to absolve Muslims of actions taken by the few, rather they were created to build a huge net to catch every Muslim for their thoughts,speech and actions, pratically anything the govt doesn't agree with.
> 
> to top that, we are also going through a period where islamophobia is spreading and in many cases open. Muslims aren't allowed to open mosques near ground zero, to criticise FP, to hold govt positions without being attacked...
> 
> In all these cases we are to make exceptions, to ooh and aaaah, make concessions for the good of the wider community. Please Muslims. Attack Muslim sensibilities however and it LOL.



Sure the actions are taken by a few, but surveys show that too many of them hold opinions that shouldn't really be the kind of thing that you should look to just ignore


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sure the actions are taken by a few, but surveys show that too many of them hold opinions that shouldn't really be the kind of thing that you should look to just ignore



So we should all think what we are told to think. I hope you see the hole in this argument.

@baconbit, avoid the patronising post with red herrings and maybe Its worth rebutting. No point going round in circles debating arguments no one has made.


----------



## jinjue (May 7, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> There's a difference between exercising your right to free speech and going out of your way to provoke a reaction.


Since when are the two mutually exclusive?

Whether you like it or not, in the US "freedom of speech" is a right.  "Not being offended" isn't.


----------



## kire (May 7, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> It's a lose lose situation.
> 
> Extremists overreact to thing, so protestors do thing even more, making the extremists overreact to thing, making protestors do thing more.
> 
> ...



Its all so pointless..

People have been using the freedom of speech right for anything and everything..And in this case, it wasn't even necessary.  The so called contest was a contest, that they knew would provoke extremists and therefore possibly endanger lives and not just their own.  The whole thing was mind numbingly stupid.  You are free to exercise your rights as long as you don't impede the rights of others, which this "event" clearly did.

..and that is all I'm going to say about it...


----------



## Krory (May 7, 2015)

ITT: People still saying, "They kinda had it coming."


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 7, 2015)

kire said:


> Its all so pointless..
> 
> People have been using the freedom of speech right for anything and everything..And in this case, it wasn't even necessary.  The so called contest was a contest, that they knew would provoke extremists and therefore possibly endanger lives and not just their own.  The whole thing was mind numbingly stupid.  You are free to exercise your rights as long as you don't impede the rights of others, which this "event" clearly did.
> 
> ..and that is all I'm going to say about it...



So what you're basically saying is they knew Muslims gon Mus and actively caused the Mus'n to happen?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 7, 2015)

kire said:


> Its all so pointless..
> 
> People have been using the freedom of speech right for anything and everything..And in this case, it wasn't even necessary.  The so called contest was a contest, that they knew would provoke extremists and therefore possibly endanger lives and not just their own.  The whole thing was mind numbingly stupid.  *You are free to exercise your rights as long as you don't impede the rights of others, which this "event" clearly did.*
> 
> ..and that is all I'm going to say about it...



what "rights" did the event impede on?

none 

stop talking out of your ass


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 7, 2015)

afgpride said:


> what "rights" did the event impede on?
> 
> none
> 
> stop talking out of your ass



The right not to be offended by things people do behind closed doors is apparently a thing now.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 7, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> Yet they should be.They should be subjected to criticism for spreading hate,discrimination.
> 
> For a moment,think the terrorist act didn't happen,think it wasn't directed towards Muslim.Just a typical hate group spreading hate. Would you still support a group that spreads hate/discrimination?
> 
> ...


You know what spreads hate and discrimination?  Islam.  The Quran itself, which Imaams in mosques across the globe pull from in their preaching, spreads a fuckton of hate toward non-believers, labelling them as deserving of less privilege and even threatening them with eternal torture in the afterlife.  

Yet I highly doubt you'd be singing the same tune if the subject of criticism were a good chunk of mosques around the globe, including the U.S., where non-terrorists spread "hate" and "discrimination" against people who don't adhere to Islamic teachings.  That would be classified as religious intolerance after all now wouldn't it?

The difference here is that the subject of ridicule and criticism in this event was a historical figure that certain people happen to idolize, and by extension a socio-philosophical ideology that certain people happen to follow.  Boo fucking hoo.  Not only were they not preaching the death of Muslims, or eternal torture for them, they were making a political statement in favor of free speech.  If that classifies as spreading hate and discrimination then it would take an outrageous amount of hypocrisy and confirmation bias not to apply the same criticism to the endless other social gatherings where people hold opinions that offends another group of people.  The precedent is absurdly coddling and short sighted at a sociological level.


----------



## N120 (May 8, 2015)

I'm not going to say there aren't imams who do this, but to generalise this would be wrong.

There's a difference between preaching ones faith and attacking individuals or a community. we form a part of the wider community and suffer from the same social and economical problems just like everybody else, sermons are in part delivered as a form of critique or solution to the problems we are facing within the Muslim community and as part of the wider community.

Some imams are rubbish, some are adequate, and some are great. 

The Friday sermons aren't generally aimed at the "Kuffar", as there are separate seminars and Dawah workshops that address the non Muslims/new Muslims/youth.

And In most cases Muslims themselves are the group being critiqued in these sermons. You should know in Islam no one is given a free pass to jannah, not even Muslims, it's all about deeds and intentions.


----------



## emachina (May 8, 2015)

After reading some of these comments, I have had a change of heart. I believe any group that takes out inflammatory billboards for the purpose of provoking a negative response, any person who decides to call another person a savage simply because of their beliefs, groups that hold contests for no purpose other than to agitate and enrage believers of a faith should be held responsible should a member of that faith retaliate with violence.

Therefore, I ask that Richard Dawkins and his foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, and other groups like this be labeled hate groups by the SPLC and any repercussion of their hate speech or actions be placed solely on them.

Or, is it only hate speech when we offend Muslims?


----------



## N120 (May 8, 2015)

emachina said:


> After reading some of these comments, I have had a change of heart. I believe any group that takes out inflammatory billboards for the purpose of provoking a negative response, any person who decides to call another person a savage simply because of their beliefs, groups that hold contests for no purpose other than to agitate and enrage believers of a faith should be held responsible should a member of that faith retaliate with violence.
> 
> Therefore, I ask that Richard Dawkins and his foundation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, and other groups like this be labeled hate groups by the SPLC and any repercussion of their hate speech or actions be placed solely on them.
> 
> Or, is it only hate speech when we offend Muslims?



I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, there's nothing wrong with offending Muslims.

The issue is some people here not being able stomach any opposition to the hate campaign without equating it with the activity of the two individuals who broke the law, it's a red herring aimed at deligitmising the opponent. The opposition is paraded as part of this conspiracy against free speech which is ridiculous and their arguments are misrepresented As justifications for criminal activity, which no one for/against these cartoons has actually defended.

If you have a right to offend, dont get all self righteous when people you targeted say they were offended by your your efforts to offend them. Both are forms of FoS. It works both ways.


----------



## Foxve (May 8, 2015)

Why is this thread still going strong? Some people had a cartoon contest, it offended some Muslims who instead of starting a protest or asking them if they could not have a offense contest, decided to shoot up the place and got caps in their asses. 

The people that came to shoot everyone there is clearly in wrong.


----------



## emachina (May 8, 2015)

N120 said:


> I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, there's nothing wrong with offending Muslims.
> 
> The issue is some people here not being able stomach any opposition to the hate campaign without equating it with the activity of the two individuals who broke the law, it's a red herring aimed at deligitmising the opponent. The opposition is paraded as part of this conspiracy against free speech which is ridiculous and their arguments are misrepresented As justifications for criminal activity, which no one for/against these cartoons has actually defended.
> 
> If you have a right to offend, dont get all self righteous when people you targeted say they were offended by your your efforts to offend them. Both are forms of FoS. It works both ways.



I agree with you. But, my point really is that some people are trying to rationalize this away because the group that hosted this event is labeled a "hate group". When some of their methods and attitudes are the exact same as groups that target Christians and Jews, but aren't labeled "hate groups".


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 8, 2015)

Great thread


----------



## baconbits (May 8, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> There's a difference between exercising your right to free speech and going out of your way to provoke a reaction.



Actually there's not.  One is just a specific example of the other.



N120 said:


> to top that, we are also going through a period where islamophobia is spreading and in many cases out in the open. Muslims aren't allowed to open mosques near ground zero, to criticise FP, to hold govt positions, etc etc without being attacked...



I can accept that contention, but some of the fears are legitimate (not all, most certainly).  We have some radical elements that don't want to accept American society as it is.  We shouldn't accept that.

For example, we have art galleries where the cross, a reverent item for Christians, was placed in urine.  That's disgusting.  It makes no legitimate point.  Its classless.  Yet we don't have any Christians trying to kill the artists.  That's what America is.

To me if you really want to prevent Islamophobia you have to accept even crude criticisms.  That's what the West is.  Its offensive, brash, often stupid but free.



N120 said:


> Somewhere in the background some donut will shout out "freedom of speech" and follow it through with a high five.



Lol.  You can argue I've already done that.  I won't dispute that.  But if you cannot respect the ideals of free speech there's not a place for you in the western world.



kire said:


> You are free to exercise your rights as long as you don't impede the rights of others, which this "event" clearly did.



What rights were infringed upon?  This doesn't make sense unless you're suggesting people have a right not to have their beliefs insulted.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 8, 2015)

Bill Whittle BTFO's Jihadi's and their leftist allies

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PWgOAtCn8k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 8, 2015)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I'm not sure what point the people saying "well the people who did the show were douchebags too" are trying to make.
> 
> If I call someone fat and he murders me and my entire family, and you going to say "Well, you did call him fat"?





Tsukiyomi said:


> Ok, you called them assholes.  Now what?



No stop, hold on. You're getting it wrong. It's more like knowing that person A doesn't like A. Whether or not you chose to do A has no effect on your like. You can do A and he would not know. Instead you go out of your way to show off A to piss person A off.


----------



## Punished Pathos (May 8, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> It's a lose lose situation.
> 
> Extremists overreact to thing, so protestors do thing even more, making the extremists overreact to thing, making protestors do thing more.
> 
> ...



THIS...

Seriously, Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable. 

It's as if people thought that Charlie Hebdo was nothing but a dream.
No one should be provoking anyone.
All I see here is radical Americans provoking radical Muslims.
Both sides are abusing shit.
Meh, people will learn the hard way.

I say let the idiots goad extremists into killing them.
Idiots throw caution into the wind and disrespect/provoke an group of ALREADY fringe/disenfranchised Muslims/converted terrorists into killing them and innocent people because of misuse of Free Speech.
Maybe both sides will kill each other off 
Both are influenced by propaganda.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

> Seriously, Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable.



whatever actions the religious carry out fall squarely on their shoulders.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 8, 2015)

Punished Pathos said:


> Seriously, Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable.



If freedom of speech doesn't protect your right to say or express something that a particular group might find offensive then what good is it?


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

Punished Pathos said:


> Seriously, Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable..



Yes it does.

Yes it fucking does and if religious people or any kind of people choose to do the unthinkable in response to free speech we will shoot them dead in the street until there aren't any left who will.

And that's the long and the short of it.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 8, 2015)

FUCKING HATE GROUPS

WE HATE THEM SO MUCH

...


----------



## Son of Goku (May 8, 2015)

Punished Pathos said:


> All I see here is radical Americans provoking radical Muslims.



Sums up the whole thing. 



Tsukiyomi said:


> If freedom of speech doesn't protect your right to say or express something that a particular group might find offensive then what good is it?



Nobody said anything about taking any rights away. But that doesn't mean that these rights can't be misused for spreading hate, which may be legal to a point but no less 'wrong'.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 8, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> *Nobody said anything about taking any rights away.* But that doesn't mean that these rights can't be misused for spreading hate, which may be legal to a point but no less 'wrong'.



Really?



Punished Pathos said:


> Seriously, Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable.



Sounds to me like that's trying to take away someones right to be offensive to certain groups.


----------



## SLB (May 8, 2015)

> provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable..



literally what? 

if a cartoon can provoke you into doing shit like this, then you're the problem. period. and thankfully the vast majority of muslims would never act like this.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> Yes it fucking does and if religious people or any kind of people choose to do the unthinkable in response to free speech we will shoot them dead in the street until there aren't any left who will.
> 
> And that's the long and the short of it.



Not necessarily disagreeing, but you realize that there are, and always have been laws against hate speech.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (May 8, 2015)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Not necessarily disagreeing, but you realize that there are, and always have been laws against hate speech.



Being purposefully offensive isn't automatically hate speech though.


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Not necessarily disagreeing, but you realize that there are, and always have been laws against hate speech.





Not really. Not unless it's inciting immediate unlawful action. Which cartoons obviously don't.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (May 8, 2015)




----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Do you mean "which these cartoons obviously didn't" or "cartoons in general obviously can't incite immediate unlawful action".



Both. The idea of someone drawing cartoons to whip a crowd into a violent frenzy is absurd.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Both. The idea of someone drawing cartoons to whip a crowd into a violent frenzy is absurd.



Do you seriously not know what propaganda is? How is a picture that tells people to do stuff to another group of people, different from a book or live speaker telling people these things?


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Do you seriously not know what propaganda is?



"Propaganda" as you put it, as released by a private individual or organization, is protected under free speech laws; and no, I don't think a caricature of a Japanese is going to incite anyone to go put a pitchfork in their Japanese neighbor.

Incitement to "Immediate unlawful action" is "Those ^ (use bro) over there raped a white girl last night, let's go get them!" not "Islam is shit and Muhammad is a p*d*p****" or even "You should shoot Japanese people if you see one".


----------



## ImperatorMortis (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> "Propaganda" as you put it, as released by a private individual or organization, is protected under free speech laws; and no, I don't think a caricature of a Japanese is going to incite anyone to go put a pitchfork in their Japanese neighbor.
> 
> Incitement to "Immediate unlawful action" is "Those ^ (use bro) over there raped a white girl last night, let's go get them!" not "Islam is shit and Muhammad is a p*d*p****" or even "You should shoot Japanese people if you see one".



Thats not what I'm saying. I'm asking you how does something being a drawing make it not hate speech? 

Lets use your example "Those ^ (use bro) over there raped a white girl last night, let's go get them!" lets say there were posters of these put up around saying something along the lines of this. Would that not be hate speech, simply because it was a drawing or whatever? 

Also how does "You should shoot Japanese people if you see one" not count as inciting "immediate unlawful action"? Because Japanese aren't really targets these days?

Edit: Also I agree that these drawings in this situation don't count as hate speech. I'm merely questioning why you don't consider any drawing to count in that category.


----------



## FLORIDA MAN (May 8, 2015)

man this guys an idiot rofl


----------



## emachina (May 8, 2015)

Punished Pathos said:


> THIS...
> 
> Seriously, Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to provoke a religious group of people into doing the unthinkable.
> 
> ...



So, basically you believe that if Richard Dawkin's holds an Atheist Convention, and it outrages me and my fellow Christian counter parts, he should cancel it. If the idea of the Reason Rally infuriates me so much I threaten violence, then they should cancel it.

The idea that everyone's freedom of speech and free assembly should be held hostage because it might piss someone off is no better than fascism. A right unexercised is a right denied.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

I'm gonna go on record here and exercise my free speech by saying that although I'm a completely peaceful person who's never used or will use violence nor indoctrinate other people to use violence, I've never had and can't bring myself to have any sympathy for the dead hebdos 

I say we exercise our free right to purchase hebdo offices and convert them into a mosque as well


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

Why would anyone be surprised you'd say something like that? You've repeatedly shown to endorse radical actions even if you don't take part in them yourself.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Why would anyone be surprised you'd say something like that? You've repeatedly shown to endorse radical actions even if you don't take part in them yourself.



no.

If i had information right now that a group of muslims were planning to murder a well known islamaphobic tomorrow, the first thing I'd do is call 999 and tell the police. Im completely against violence.

this is the problem with free speech. Even though I had to go out of my way to make strong disclosures to show that I'd never endorse radical behaviour, people choose to negatively interpret your words resulting from their own biased agenda. Thats a massive disadvantage.


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

Wealthy, educated people like WT will never pick up a weapon no matter how strongly they feel about things.

Which is a good thing. We need to get his baboon friends into the same position he's in. 
Of course that's hard when they're being taught jihad from birth, so we might have to break a few eggs to get them there. So sad. But it's for the best.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Wealthy, educated people like WT will never pick up a weapon no matter how strongly they feel about things.



Educated people tend to be less violent but personally, I genuinely *LOVE* my non muslim colleagues and would never wish harm on them. 

I love Britain and British people with all my heart.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Which is a good thing. We need to get his baboon friends into the same position he's in.
> Of course that's hard when they're being taught jihad from birth, so we might have to break a few eggs to get them there. So sad. But it's for the best.



Most of my friends are non muslims or educated muslim accountants, bankers, doctors who are incredibly moderate.

I thankfully don't know any "baboon" friends you spoke of


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

> no.
> 
> If i had information right now that a group of muslims were planning to murder a well known islamaphobic tomorrow, the first thing I'd do is call 999 and tell the police. Im completely against violence.
> 
> this is the problem with free speech. Even though I had to go out of my way to make strong disclosures to show that I'd never endorse radical behaviour, people choose to negatively interpret your words resulting from their own biased agenda. Thats a massive disadvantage.



Yet clearly, if they just so happen to do so, you wouldn't mind.



> I love Britain and British people with all my heart.



So long as they don't dare to offend, evidently enough.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yet clearly, if they just so happen to do so, you wouldn't mind.



If I had the power to stop it, yes I would. I would never do it myself or convince other people do it.

But if its out of my control and it happens, yes you are right, I wouldn't give two shits.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> So long as they don't dare to offend, evidently enough.



People I know have jokingly offended Islam many times in front of me. I laughed with them.

Its different when someone insults you because they're having a joke but when someone insults you and they genuinely hate you, yes, I'll probably hate them back. Its the same with everyone else.


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> Most of my friends are non muslims or educated muslim accountants, bankers, doctors who are incredibly moderate.
> 
> I thankfully don't know any "baboon" friends you spoke of



Yet you're cheering for them.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Yet you're cheering for them.



Free speech kinda doesn't exist for muslims you know, especially when the person you're talking to is a Murikan. You see, when you make slightly controversial statements having made strong disclosures, I mean really black and white, that you don't support the terrorists, they'll subconsciously ignore that part and judge you as the enemy (therefore its okay for Murika to free the world of you) because they're Murikans. I've noted this trend even amongst the educated ones. 

Its sad really


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> If I had the power to stop it, yes I would. I would never do it myself or convince other people do it.
> 
> But if its out of my control and it happens, yes you are right, I wouldn't give two shits.



Yet you seem pleased when it does happen. 



WT said:


> People I know have jokingly offended Islam many times in front of me. I laughed with them.
> 
> Its different when someone insults you because they're having a joke but when someone insults you and they genuinely hate you, yes, I'll probably hate them back. Its the same with everyone else.



How do you know all or any of the dead from the Charlie Hebdo shootings hated Islam? What if they were the same types as the people you personally know? Considering particularly that they lampooned all faiths and all kinds of people, I think it's a safe bet they were. Yet here you are giddy over their deaths.


----------



## jinjue (May 8, 2015)

N120 said:


> If you have a right to offend, dont get all self righteous when people you targeted say they were offended by your your efforts to offend them.


I don't think anyone here is saying that Muslims don't have the right to be offended.  They do, just like everyone else.

They don't have the right to shoot up a joint and murder people because they're offended, though.  Nor should the people who offended them be blamed as being responsible for the violence these Muslims perpetrate because they're offended.



N120 said:


> Both are forms of FoS. It works both ways.


Agreed.

Getting weapons and going out with the intent to murder people, however, isn't.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> How do you know all or any of the dead from the Charlie Hebdo shootings hated Islam? What if they were the same types as the people you personally know? Considering particularly that they lampooned all faiths and all kinds of people, I think it's a safe bet they were. Yet here you are giddy over their deaths.



I've pretty much stated in all my quotes that I was unsympathetic which should translate really to indifferent while making strong statements that I'm against terrorism etc. Even after all of this, you've made unfair and biased conclusions in your mind that I was somehow "giddy" over their deaths which completely distorts what I've said.

In your history as a poster, you've always supported drone strikes, Israel and any other event that have left hundreds of civilians dead instantaneously and thousands dead cumulatively. You've never had to make any strong and repeated statements saying that you were sympathetic towards the dead civilians. Using your own mind set, I'd say that you were more that fucking giddy over the dead women and children, because lets face it, you support those attacks full on and have never shown any remorse.

If you've never shown any remorse over hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, its infuriating to see that you're judging me over the deaths of a dozen because I said I was feeling indifferent towards what happened to them. 

Get off your fucking high horse you duplicitous twat


----------



## Buskuv (May 8, 2015)

I honestly don't get the cognitive dissonance being exhibited here.

Nobody said Muslims can't be offended by depictions of Muhammad, or that these boobs curating this clearly cultured, high-brow event weren't a bunch of smarmy, ignorant rednecks; the reaction of attempting to murder people because they said something you found offensive cannot and should not be condoned in any way, and is in no conducive to a productive society.

Every other religion gets mocked, shit on and critiqued; caving into a bunch of violent idiots just reinforces this kind of jejune criticism the extreme fringes of the Muslim culture get.

tl ; dr

deal 

w/ 

it


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> I've pretty much stated in all my quotes that I was unsympathetic which should translate really to indifferent while making strong statements that I'm against terrorism etc. Even after all of this, you've made unfair and biased conclusions in your mind that I was somehow "giddy" over their deaths which completely distorts what I've said.
> 
> In your history as a poster, you've always supported drone strikes, Israel and any other event that have left hundreds of civilians dead instantaneously and thousands dead cumulatively. You've never had to make any strong and repeated statements saying that you were sympathetic towards the dead civilians. Using your own mind set, I'd say that you were more that fucking giddy over the dead women and children, because lets face it, you support those attacks full on and have never shown any remorse.
> 
> ...



I've never supported the deaths of civilians, which is where you and I differ.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I've never supported the deaths of civilians, which is where you and I differ.



Are you inferring that the feeling of indifference is equivalent to supporting something?


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

@Seto Kaiba, in tl dr:


Me:

- I said I was indifferent to what happened c.12 people
- However, if I could have prevented it, I would have
- I would never resort to or endorse violence in any circumstance
- I don't support terrorists 
[all in one thread]

You:

- Vehemently, passionately and aggressively defended tactics that have left hundreds of thousands dead
- Never showed any remorse or made many statements showing you were sympathetic to the dead
[over hundreds of threads]

However based on what I've said, you and other posters have judged me to be giddy over the deaths of those 12 people, likened to a terrorist supporter and the like. You on other hand, have gone seemingly without criticism even though a neutral observer would conclude your speech is far more immoral than mine.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> Are you inferring that the feeling of indifference is equivalent to supporting something?



You don't care that the victims of the hebdo shootings met their ends for obvious reasons. However, I wouldn't say the same of dead civilians in the previous operations you cited. On the contrary, the very reason I support those endeavors is because they've been shown to reduce collateral damage significantly. Civilians being killed is a tragedy, but in a warzone I understand collateral damage is a reality yet one that any responsible power does what they can to avoid. 

So needless to say, the intentional targeting of such like the Hebdo shootings, I find contemptible as well cases where those under the employ of powers I support are found engaging in such behavior, as this has happened in the past. Israel is far sooner to consider civilians than say Hamas would. Drones are more precise than troops on the ground, human error while still being present is reduced dramatically and the factors involving the heat of battle, reduced as well.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You don't care that the victims of the hebdo shootings met their ends for obvious reasons.



I don't really care what happened to the people in Baltimore either, the Nepalese earth quake etc. Its sad and I wished it never happened and if I could have prevented it, I would have. My indifference results for disconnection not from drawing cartoons and shit


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

Don't try to bullshit anyone. That is not at all how you presented it: 



WT said:


> I'm gonna go on record here and exercise my free speech by saying that although I'm a completely peaceful person who's never used or will use violence nor indoctrinate other people to use violence, I've never had and can't bring myself to have any sympathy for the dead hebdos
> 
> I say we exercise our free right to purchase hebdo offices and convert them into a mosque as well



Why even bring it up? Especially in this manner? This clearly comes off at being pleased over their deaths even if you'd never participate in it yourself. You evidently enough had already written them off as an enemy to your faith of sorts in your later responses on top of that. How are you going to get angry people naturally are able to draw the conclusion that at the very least, you feel it was something deserved?


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Don't try to bullshit anyone. That is not at all how you presented it:
> 
> 
> 
> Why even bring it up? Especially in this manner? This clearly comes off at being pleased over their deaths even if you'd never participate in it yourself. You evidently enough had already written them off as an enemy to your faith of sorts in your later responses on top of that. How are you going to get angry people naturally are able to draw the conclusion that at the very least, you feel it was something deserved?



It was presented deliberately in this thread with trolly faces.

Its pretty obvious that I was trying to rustle jimmies and it seemingly worked

All in all, it was a result of the previous discussions regarding the difference between expressing free speech and saying something to provoke a reaction. My speech being the latter of course.

However had to debate whether to say it or not because I anticipated that people like you and Blue would immediately jump the gun and the word terrorist would be flung out quite a lot, in my direction of course, because I'm a muslim and because I said what I said which would demonstrate what I mentioned earlier, that free speech doesn't protect you from peoples prejudices and paranoi and they can interpret it as they see fit. The dangers of course being that when they  interpret your words negatively, they're quick to subconsciously sentence you as they see fit. 

The final interesting aspect is that if I was killed because of what I said, I don't think you'd be too upset about it


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> It was presented deliberately in this thread with trolly faces.
> 
> Its pretty obvious that I was trying to rustle jimmies and it seemingly worked
> 
> ...



_Please._ 

Yes, you exercised your freedom of speech. Even deplorable speech can fall under that. Yet it would not justify myself or anyone else physically attacking you for it. That responsibility would completely fall on ourselves for failing to have enough self-control to refrain from such behavior. 

On the other hand, freedom of speech also works that we can all the same call a spade a spade and condemn such speech. Which is exactly what happened. 

You're not a terrorist, just a breath away from being a radical. I know the difference, don't worry.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> It was presented deliberately in this thread with trolly faces.
> 
> Its pretty obvious that I was trying to rustle jimmies and it seemingly worked
> 
> ...



Did anyone tell you that you're not allowed to say that?  Is anyone pointing a gun at you, or telling you to silence yourself because they were offended by what you said?

Did anyone ever deny people have a right to be offended by someone else's free speech, so long as they respect the right to say it? 

I'm assuming the answers are no across the board, which would make it hard to see what your point is, but let me know if they have.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

afgpride said:


> Did anyone tell you that you're not allowed to say that?  Is anyone pointing a gun at you, or telling you to silence yourself because they were offended by what you said?
> 
> Did anyone ever deny people have a right to be offended by someone else's free speech, so long as they respect the right to say it?
> 
> I'm assuming the answers are no across the board, which would make it hard to see what your point is, but let me know if they have.



Although its not me and I'm a peaceful guy (another disclosure) but if I was a little more radical, say Al Muds level, I'm pretty sure I'd be monitored by the authorities. Even in my moderate stance, people like Blue and Seto Kaiba have likened me to a border line radical so who knows what authorities could think if they were reading this conversations (hence my continuous disclosures that I'm against terrorism).

This paranoi kinda does inhibit free speech if you ask me because of the potential consequences.

Its very different when you read something (because you're disconnected from the person writing so can't see their emotions and facial expressions) than when you're physically talking to someone. I'm sure if these conversations were face to face, Seto Kaiba would probably consider me to be a much more liberal person


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> Although its not me and I'm a peaceful guy (another disclosure) but if I was a little more radical, say Al Muds level, I'm pretty sure I'd be monitored by the authorities. Even in my moderate stance, people like Blue and Seto Kaiba have likened me to a border line radical so who knows what authorities could think if they were reading this conversations (hence my continuous disclosures that I'm against terrorism).
> 
> This paranoi kinda does inhibit free speech if you ask me because of the potential consequences.
> 
> Its very different when you read something (because you're disconnected from the person writing so can't see their emotions and facial expressions) than when you're physically talking to someone. I'm sure if these conversations were face to face, Seto Kaiba would probably consider me to be a much more liberal person



So you're saying there's some sort of double standard at play here with regards to free speech, at a legal level and in this thread?

I'm pretty sure the only time free speech is inhibited, even with respect to terrorist sympathizers (not that you are one), is when it directly endangers others or incites violence.

If you're not directly inciting violence, and simply nod in agreement with terrorist attacks, the feds won't be after you, unless they had reason to suspect you were involved.

Nobody in this thread is trying to silence you per se, so whether or not they get offended by what you say is sort of irrelevant.  Even if a mod even bans you for something you say, that still won't necessarily contradict the general ethos being presented in this thread, since this forum isn't a free speech zone (quite the opposite).


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

afgpride said:


> So you're saying there's some sort of double standard at play here with regards to free speech, at a legal level and in this thread?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the only time free speech is inhibited, even with respect to terrorist sympathizers (not that you are one), is when it directly endangers others or incites violence.
> 
> If you're not directly inciting violence, and simply nod in agreement with terrorist attacks, the feds won't be after you, unless they had reason to suspect you were involved.



People are paranoid. You can't change that. And its not just muslims. Its authorities as well. They can and have arrested people over small things. 

Knew a guy who knew a guy once who wrote to his parents "I'll see you in Jannah". This was back during/after 7/7. The guy was arrested for a couple of days because they thought he was gonna blow himself up. Turned out he was just pissed off with his parents and never wanted to see them again.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> People are paranoid. You can't change that. And its not just muslims. Its authorities as well. They can and have arrested people over small things.
> 
> Knew a guy who knew a guy once who wrote to his parents "I'll see you in Jannah". This was back during/after 7/7. The guy was arrested for a couple of days because they thought he was gonna blow himself up. Turned out he was just pissed off with his parents and never wanted to see them again.



Cops have beaten and killed innocent civilians too.  You can't stop corruption, or paranoia, or general human imperfection.  But you can argue in principle and at a legal level. 

That happened in Britain and not the U.S., yes?  Regardless, something like that IS a decent reason to worry and take precautions.  You have an angry teenager/young adult saying something highly suggestive and relevant to previous terrorist operations.  I'm guessing his parents were the ones that turned him in as well.


----------



## Pliskin (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> Although its not me and I'm a peaceful guy (another disclosure) but if I was a little more radical, say Al Muds level...



Dude, not trying to put words in your mouth, but saying you are just a little step away from Al Mud is pretty much saying you jack of to dead Americans. The guy was clearly happy for every terrorist attack against the west, I would not use him as a standard for a muslim that is a little extreme if your name is not Geert Wilders.


----------



## Lucy75 (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> Yes it fucking does and if religious people or any kind of people choose to do the unthinkable in response to free speech we will shoot them dead in the street until there aren't any left who will.
> 
> And that's the long and the short of it.



No it doesn't.



Seto Kaiba said:


> whatever actions the religious carry out fall squarely on their shoulders.



As well as the shoulders of the people that instigated their actions. Having free speech doesn't mean you can say anything to anybody without consequences for what you say. 

If you say something offensive to someone which pisses them off and makes them kill you, you are just as much responsible for your death as the person who killed you, since you could have just shut the fuck up and avoided a confrontation altogether.


----------



## jinjue (May 8, 2015)

Lucy75 said:


> Having free speech doesn't mean you can say anything to anybody without consequences for what you say.


That's true, but in no way is offending someone grounds for being murdered.  Mockery =/= murder, fullstop.



Lucy75 said:


> If you say something offensive to someone which pisses them off and *makes them kill you*, you are just as much responsible for your death as the person who killed you, since you could have just shut the fuck up and avoided a confrontation altogether.


I'm sorry, how is offending someone _*MAKING*_ them commit or attempt to commit mass murder again?  I didn't know that these Mohammed cartoons were physically putting guns in peoples hands and forcing them to pull the triggers.

The people resorting to murder in response to having their feelings hurt are 100% responsible for their own actions, not the people drawing pictures.  I seriously cannot believe that there are people apologising for this shit as if drawing cartoons is anywhere near the same thing as _murdering people_.


----------



## Alita (May 9, 2015)

Lucy75 said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. Say what you will about the guys who shot at the event, none of this would have happened if this event was never held in the first place.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (May 9, 2015)

Lucy75 said:


> No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong. It simply falls on the shoulders of the people that chose to carry out the actions. Physical harm or murder in retaliation for mere utterances is not a justifiable consequence. We do not exonerate individuals on that basis, because the concept of accountability for one's own actions and expectations of one's own self-control takes precedence. So your understanding of the concept of free speech is entirely off-base. You can express yourself and say a number of things which people will take offense to, this does not justify violent retaliation in saying those things. One is against the law, the other is not. It's really not that hard to understand.


----------



## Chelydra (May 9, 2015)

We should do more of these events until it becomes so routine that people just ignore them, as long as muslims feel the need to kill over drawings there remains a need to continue these events.

Muslims need to learn its NOT ok to react violently to such things regardless of how offended they may get.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 9, 2015)

It's also starting to become clear that even if we leave their part of the world they're not going to stop this.


----------



## Chelydra (May 9, 2015)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's also starting to become clear that even if we leave their part of the world they're not going to stop this.



Lets hope more people realize this so appropriate action can be taken.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (May 9, 2015)

this thread............ Someone really said this wouldnt have happened if they just hadnt had the event........ How do you even come to such a conclusion?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 9, 2015)

Can't shoot up an event that doesn't happen.

Conceivably the shooters might have tried to shoot up a different group of people, but specifically this wouldn't have happened if they hadn't held the event.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 9, 2015)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Can't shoot up an event that doesn't happen.
> 
> Conceivably the shooters might have tried to shoot up a different group of people, but specifically this wouldn't have happened if they hadn't held the event.



That's not an excuse not to do anything.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (May 9, 2015)

Never said it was. Normality asked a question, and I answered. It was intended to clearly be seen as a humorous answer, as indicated by the 

Was it not?


----------



## maj1n (May 9, 2015)

I have no problem muslim's asking or demanding respect for their religion.

Provided they reject and repudiate in the strongest words the quran for it's hate-filled message to disbelievers and women.

Btw this was a private event by invitation only that no one knew about, so your a retard to argue it was gonna piss the average muslim joe that would never have heard of this until some idiots tried to murder people over it.


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 9, 2015)

Lucy75 said:


> No it doesn't.


Yes, yes it does. I don't know where you're from, but this is how it works in the USA. Free speech is not limited even for people who are speaking hateful things. It's the reason that the KKK, New Black Panthers, Neo-Nazi groups, and Westburo Baptist Church are still around and can still say what they say and speak their beliefs. It's also the reason that people can go up to them and rightfully call them insane hateful douchbag assholes. People are allowed to say awful shit, but they have the right to say it due to the rights granted to them in the constitution. 



> As well as the shoulders of the people that instigated their actions. Having free speech doesn't mean you can say anything to anybody without consequences for what you say.



Yes it does. Unless you are directly inciting a riot, or something similar. Saying something along the lines of, "Hey, We need to prove a point! We need to prove we mean business! lynch this fucking fucking n***er over there!" at some riled up and already ridiculously angry KKK rally who would readily do such a thing, is not something that would not be protected by free speach. But holding a draw Muhammad event which does not directly incite a riot is something that is 100% protected by free speech rights. If someone was pissed over a drawing event, well then too bad, peacefully protest about it, don't shoot people over it.



> If you say something offensive to someone which pisses them off *and makes them kill you*, you are just as much responsible for your death as the person who killed you, since you could have just shut the fuck up and avoided a confrontation altogether.



wat? I mean.......wat.....? 

Holding an event to draw Muhammad does not *make* anyone kill anyone else.


----------



## Blue (May 9, 2015)

Lucy75 said:


> No it doesn't.



Yes it does, what part of 'you will be fucking shot dead if you try to undermine free speech with violence' don't you understand?

What part here isn't clear? Abrogation of free speech is not up for debate. You let people speak their mind, as they let you, or you die and when you die there will be nobody left to say "No it doesn't."

Am I getting through to you yet?



> Agreed. Say what you will about the guys who shot at the event, none of this would have happened if this event was never held in the first place.


I'm glad it happened, two more people we won't have to deal with later. It should happen more.


----------



## Zyrax (May 9, 2015)

why was ~Greed~ banned?


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 9, 2015)

It's fake .

My rep is flipped too.

'bout time someone asked though.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 9, 2015)

Chelydra said:


> Muslims need to learn its NOT ok to react violently to such things regardless of how offended they may get.



Really?! You mean all 1.6 billion of them? 


Murikans must learn that this kind of bigoted shit isn't acceptable.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's also starting to become clear that even if we leave their part of the world they're not going to stop this.



You're probably right, which means you gotta conquer them and their oil, there's just no getting around that.


----------



## Blue (May 9, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Really?! You mean all 1.6 billion of them?
> 
> 
> Murikans must learn that this kind of bigoted shit isn't acceptable.
> ...



Still with the oil line when it was never about oil and definitely isn't about oil now that America is or will be very soon the #1 oil-producing country in the world.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 9, 2015)

> Still with the oil line when it was never about oil






http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ar-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy


----------



## Blue (May 9, 2015)

>Opinion piece by "Nafeez Ahmed"

Really?

How about you form your own opinion by examining facts

like how 75% of Iraqi oil is going to China or how the war cost many times over what any reasonable amount of oil would cost, and that America never saw a dime of that oil money

Another consideration is that the Bush Administration would have had a much easier time dealing with the environmental lobby preventing very large American oil reserves from being drilled than it would have had invading a country

Suggesting that the war was about oil is absolutely beyond absurd and shows a dramatic lack of knowledge in economics and foreign policy.


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 9, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Really?! You mean all 1.6 billion of them?



Luckily only a small fraction of that 1.6 billion are radical idiots who are dumb enough to walk into Texas and get riddled with bullets.




> Murikans must learn that this kind of bigoted shit isn't acceptable.



Why? Their feelings get hurt? You don't like it? It's blasphemy? Guess what, we don't care. You're feelings don't matter to us. People being able to say or express themselves however they want without fear of legal action taken against them, that is what matters. That is what the US law cares about. The US doesn't give a shit if your feelings get hurt, especially because of something stupid like a drawing. If you don't like it, too bad.


----------



## Parallax (May 9, 2015)

~Greed~ said:


> Luckily only a small fraction of that 1.6 billion are radical idiots who are dumb enough to walk into Texas and get riddled with bullets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that isn't exactly how the first amendment works, otherwise we wouldn't have shit like libel and slander.  It's a bit more nuanced than that


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 9, 2015)

Parallax said:


> that isn't exactly how the first amendment works, otherwise we wouldn't have shit like libel and slander.  It's a bit more nuanced than that



I know. There are obvious exceptions. I probably could have worded it better or listed the exceptions. But I figured that most people would know that speech that brings harm to someone else in some way is illegal. Libel and slander like you said, along with inciting a riot via speech, and a few other things can result in someone being charged with a crime and are illegal. I had even mentioned inciting a riot as an example earlier in this thread. In this particular case, no crime that bypasses freedom of speech was committed.


----------



## Son of Goku (May 10, 2015)

Blue said:


> Still with the oil line when it was never about oil and definitely isn't about oil now that America is or will be very soon the #1 oil-producing country in the world.



Never, really? 

It's always (also) about oil. Even if you don't need it for yourself, you and you're companies still want to have control over it. Are you really naive enough to think that oil, which runs every economy in the world, is a non-factor for the US?


*Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html


*
Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil*



And then there are various quotes from fellow repubs:



> U.S. Secretary of Defense ? and former 12-year Republican Senator ? Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:
> 
> _People say we?re not fighting for *oil*. Of course we are. They talk about America?s national interest. What the hell do you think they?re talking about? We?re not there for figs._​
> 4 Star General John Abizaid ? the former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq ? said:
> ...





I could go on and on and...




~Greed~ said:


> Why?



Cause being bigoted is bad, mkay?!


----------



## Blue (May 10, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Are you really naive enough to think that oil, which runs every economy in the world, is a non-factor for the US?



Commercial interests are the #1 - arguably the only - factor in the US deciding whether to fight a war, yes

The US is a corporate republic; the vast majority of American power ultimately flows from corporations and their workforces.

But oil is only one relatively small part of that whole commercial equation, and the US doesn't care who buys oil or sells oil or builds the oil derricks, only that oil, along with all other commodities, is traded freely on the world markets. 

The oil companies which form part of the US corporatocracy would have likely prefered that the oil fields in Iraq remain under embargo; the less oil that flows out of Iraq, the higher the global price of oil the higher their profits. 

Of course most other commercial interests prefer lower oil prices, but again war to secure oil is contrary to their interests, because any armed conflict in oil producing regions ultimately drives up the price of oil.

All your quotes are either from ignorant military shitheads, aren't about Iraqi oil, or is from Alan Greenspan who is a libertarian and said that quote in his book while bashing Bush in every way possible. 

Saying that the US fought a trillion dollar war for at best 200 billion dollars worth of oil is bananas.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 10, 2015)

Blue said:


> >Opinion piece by "Nafeez Ahmed"
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


>he has a muslim-sounding name so he's immediately suspicious

americans op 

anyway that opinion piece was linked specifically bc it cites a lot of facts, alongside that other fact-based article collating the entire case for thinking the iraq war was fought at least partly (a significant part) for oil

"the war couldn't have been fought for oil bc it cost more than oil would cost" doesn't work as logic bc it implies the total cost of the iraq war was foreseen 
from the beginning and i don't think the decision-makers foresaw what a clusterfuck it would become 

i don't buy that assessment of what the bush administration could and couldn't do considering 9/11 and the bogus chemical weapons excuse, etc.

not to mention discovery of greater us oil reserves which made fighting wars for overseas oil happened relatively relatively. iirc a huge spike in proven oil reserves came as recently as 2008 and 2012, which is of course a while after the iraq war started

anyways, welp, judging from your dismissal of people in the know as "ignorant military shitheads" (because the military would have no idea why _wars _are being fought) and so on demonstrates that you were never going to listen to any reason to begin with, so


----------



## Sherlōck (May 10, 2015)

If Bush himself says "I went to Iraq because of oil" you still won't be able to convince Blue.


----------



## Pliskin (May 10, 2015)

Blue simply doesn't misunderestimate Bush.


----------



## Blue (May 10, 2015)

Oh my god you guys. Anyone with a modicum of education will tell you that the war wasn't about oil. It doesn't make sense geopolitically, economically, or historically. It doesn't make sense practically.

It is a delusion cooked up by Iraq war opponents to put a sharp point on criticism of the war, because "the war was started to safeguard commercial interests, stabilize the region, and because Rumsfeld and Cheney were insane" just doesn't ring with progressives as much as WE WERE STEALING OIL

I remind you once again that the US never saw a dime of Iraq oil profits and despite having de facto control of the country and its commercial interests, allowed every major oil field to go to Chinese concerns.

I shouldn't even have to explain this really, it's like explaining why global warming is a thing to a denier.


----------



## Deleted member 23 (May 10, 2015)

Blue said:


> Oh my god you guys. Anyone with a modicum of education will tell you that the war wasn't about oil. It doesn't make sense geopolitically, economically, or historically. It doesn't make sense practically.
> 
> It is a delusion cooked up by Iraq war opponents to put a sharp point on criticism of the war, because "the war was started to safeguard commercial interests, stabilize the region, and because Rumsfeld and Cheney were insane" just doesn't ring with progressives as much as WE WERE STEALING OIL
> 
> ...



Do you really believe it Blue? Do you really think, the US did not, would not go to war for oil?


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 10, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Cause being bigoted is bad, mkay?!



I never said it wasn't.  In fact, I said the opposite .


----------



## Son of Goku (May 10, 2015)

Blue said:


> Saying that the US fought a trillion dollar war for at best 200 billion dollars worth of oil is bananas.



140 billion barrels equal 200 billion dollars? That's quite the bargain price you're calculating with. 

The cost benefit ratio of a war doesn't work that way, since it's the taxpayers who pay for the bill (including deaths), while corperations and politicians only bag the profits/gains. Simplified.




Blue said:


> It is a delusion cooked up by Iraq war opponents to put a sharp point on criticism of the war, because "the war was started to safeguard commercial interests, stabilize the region, and because Rumsfeld and Cheney were insane" just doesn't ring with progressives as much as WE WERE STEALING OIL



That's just not true. The critics always acknowledged that there were also other reasons to invade Iraq (regime change, for one). The only reasons that weren't seen as legitimate, were the WMD bullshit and the alleged links to 9/11 and Al Qaida. Stuff you probably bought in to right away.




> I remind you once again that the *US never saw a dime of Iraq oil profits* and despite having de facto control of the country and its commercial interests, allowed every major oil field to go to Chinese concerns.



Source pls. 

So you're saying US oil companies operate in Iraq without making money?


Anyway... Watch and learn:

[YOUTUBE]AFEQ4bDmqYs[/YOUTUBE]



~Greed~ said:


> I never said it wasn't.  In fact, I said the opposite .



And yet you asked "why".


----------



## ~Greed~ (May 10, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> And yet you asked "why".



Except, like I said, free speech allows them to do so.

People can say what they want, even if it offends someone else. They can use that speech to say/draw/write bigoted things. And others can stand up to those bigots by using free speech to their advantage and calling those bigots out on their own bigotry. Moreover, what one group believes is bigoted or wrong or offensive in some way, another may believe is correct or not offensive at all. Everyone is offended by something, but it would be stupid to ban expressing all beliefs that offend someone else, because then nobody will be able to say anything at all.


----------



## Punished Pathos (May 10, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> 140 billion barrels equal 200 billion dollars? That's quite the bargain price you're calculating with.
> 
> The cost benefit ratio of a war doesn't work that way, since it's the taxpayers who pay for the bill (including deaths), while corperations and politicians only bag the profits/gains. Simplified.
> 
> ...



Hey, you can't speak against the almighty U.S and its actions.
You're nothing but a conspiracy theorist.
Eat GMO, take vaccines and support our perfect healthcare system.
Support our military's efforts of destabilizing the middle east


----------



## Son of Goku (May 10, 2015)

~Greed~ said:


> Except, like I said, free speech allows them to do so.
> 
> People can say what they want, even if it offends someone else. They can use that speech to say/draw/write bigoted things. And others can stand up to those bigots by using free speech to their advantage and calling those bigots out on their own bigotry. Moreover, what one group believes is bigoted or wrong or offensive in some way, another may believe is correct or not offensive at all. Everyone is offended by something, but it would be stupid to ban expressing all beliefs that offend someone else, because then nobody will be able to say anything at all.



Yeah, that's great, why don't you get yourself some freedom fries. 

Let me rehash things for you:
Chely made a bigoted statement, I called him out on it and said that 'Murikans' (i.e. guys like Chely) should learn that bigoted statements like that are unacceptable. And then you started yapping about the concept of freedom of speech, as if I'm opposed to it. I made it clear multiple times that I'm not.


----------



## Chelydra (May 10, 2015)

Son of Goku said:


> Yeah, that's great, why don't you get yourself some freedom fries.
> 
> Let me rehash things for you:
> Chely made a bigoted statement, I called him out on it and said that 'Murikans' (i.e. guys like Chely) should learn that bigoted statements like that are unacceptable. And then you started yapping about the concept of freedom of speech, as if I'm opposed to it. I made it clear multiple times that I'm not.



You are, if your opposed to these events and defending violent reactions over fucking drawings, and since currently its only muslims who are getting uppity over such things I will continue to make such statements until they decide to join the rest of the world in the 21st century and just ignore it.

Just calling what I see.


----------



## emachina (May 10, 2015)

Chelydra said:


> You are if your opposed to these events and defending violent reactions over fucking drawings, and since currently its only muslims who are getting uppity over such things I will continue to make such statements until they decide to join the rest of the world in the 21st century and just ignore it.
> 
> Just calling what I see.



You offend me sir! I, personally, lie awake many a night, fretting that the very people who either want to shoot me, or cut my head off with a rusty knife, think I'm a bigot. Their opinion of me means a great deal.


----------



## Chelydra (May 11, 2015)

emachina said:


> You offend me sir! I, personally, lie awake many a night, fretting that the very people who either want to shoot me, or cut my head off with a rusty knife, think I'm a bigot. Their opinion of me means a great deal.



No your doing it wrong, you need to start a riot, threaten to kill me or my family and burn buildings since your feelings were hurt. 

And boycott merchandise...


----------



## N120 (May 11, 2015)

Chelydra said:


> No your doing it wrong, you need to start a riot, threaten to kill me or my family and burn buildings since your feelings were hurt.
> 
> And boycott merchandise...



It seems "free speech" is too much for you. It's 2015, you gotta catch up fam.


----------



## Lucy75 (May 11, 2015)

~Greed~ said:


> Yes, yes it does. I don't know where you're from, but this is how it works in the USA. Free speech is not limited even for people who are speaking hateful things. It's the reason that the KKK, New Black Panthers, Neo-Nazi groups, and Westburo Baptist Church are still around and can still say what they say and speak their beliefs. It's also the reason that people can go up to them and rightfully call them insane hateful douchbag assholes. People are allowed to say awful shit, but they have the right to say it due to the rights granted to them in the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said it was against the law to hold the event. But you need to realize that there are consequences for holding it. Such as people being mad over it. Some of them may do peaceful protests in response, others may feel it's appropriate to shoot and kill them over it. The people that hosted the event brought it on themselves period. The people that instigate violence are just as much to blame as those who carry it out. If the event wasn't held those isis guys woulden't have came there with guns intent on killing people. Just the same as how those people at charle hebdo woulden't have been shot if they didn't constantly bash and insult muslims and their religion with their cartoons(Even after they were told to stop.). 

Don't expect me to have sympathy for a bunch of racists who get killed by violence they bring upon themselves. Going to your kkk example, if those racists made it a habit to insult a black man frequently cause of his race and he decides to beat them up or shoot them dead as a result too bad so sad. They got what they deserved and brought that upon themselves.



Blue said:


> Yes it does, what part of 'you will be fucking shot dead if you try to undermine free speech with violence' don't you understand?
> 
> What part here isn't clear? Abrogation of free speech is not up for debate. You let people speak their mind, as they let you, or you die and when you die there will be nobody left to say "No it doesn't."
> 
> ...



So let's say this hate group hosts another similar event only this time, more isis members attack and they end up killing the security, the people at the event, and numerous innocent civilians. Would you be happy they hosted the event even at the cost of so much life lost? Just to appease some white supremacists who want to insult people because of their race or religion?

We know for a fact that members of isis respond violently when their religion is insulted. That's a fact we can't change. That being said, hosting these types of events does nothing positive for America. All it does is make isis more and more likely to launch more and more terrorist attacks on American soil. Which could end up just as bad as Charlie hebdo if not much worse. Which is especially bad now since isis is supposedly gaining more support online and more Americans are converting. 

I also find it hilarious how you are so for violence against muslims but completely against the violence in Baltimore even though their reasoning for doing it was far more justified.


----------



## emachina (May 12, 2015)

blog.siriusxm.com/2015/05/11/dean-obeidallah-show-draw-your-favorite-islamophobe-contest

Perfect opportunity for people to put their money where their mouth is. Here's a nice "hate event" being organized to prove a point. Will people call out Dean and petition the SPLC to label Sirius XM a hate group for hosting such an event? He's even encouraging people to draw ISIS, that could be bad, right? It might inspire ISIS to retaliate, after all. And we don't want to offend them for no reason!

Come on peeps! Don't 't forget! It's wrong to purposefully outrage people based on their beliefs!


----------



## Chelydra (May 12, 2015)

Turns out the gunmen was tied to ISIS surprise surprise 





> Hours before he drove into a Texas parking lot last week and opened fire with an assault rifle outside a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest, Elton Simpson, 30, logged onto Twitter.
> 
> “Follow @_AbuHu55ain,” Mr. Simpson posted, promoting a Twitter account believed to belong to Junaid Hussain, a young computer expert from Birmingham, England, who moved to Syria two years ago to join the Islamic State and has become one of the extremist group’s celebrity hackers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mider T (May 12, 2015)

Somebody say bananas?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (May 12, 2015)

Mider T said:


> Somebody say bananas?



B-A-N-A-N-A-S?


----------



## Son of Goku (May 13, 2015)

Chelydra said:


> You are, if your opposed to these events and defending violent reactions over fucking drawings, and since currently its only muslims who are getting uppity over such things I will continue to make such statements until they decide to join the rest of the world in the 21st century and just ignore it.
> 
> Just calling what I see.



Then you need to check your eyes buddy, cause I didn't defend any violent reactions to non-violent events. 
And opposing a bigoted event doesn't mean opposing freedom of speech. That's like saying that not wanting to fuck unattractive women means you're gay.


----------

