Muslim Extremists Firebomb Publisher of Allah Book

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.

Who do I see about reclaiming the time I've wasted arguing with that guy on other threads?

Sand

Yourself I guess, obvious troll is obvious.

I mean I was scanning through this and this comment "While stoning women for adultury might be one end of the extreme, turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores is on the other end of the extreme." made me laugh. It just shouts "LOOKATME!!!!"

What was even funnier was a response to the above quote that went "That is true..." , is it? Really?

Back on topic though its to be hoped these guys get the book thrown at them. Western society needs to stamp out firmly threats to free speech, where small unrepresentitive groups can act as self appointed censors. I do wonder if Denise Spellberg will foot the bill for the repairs seeing as she was responsible for stoking anger in extremist groups. They probably wouldnt even have heard of the book had she not gone out of her way to tell them they should be enraged about it.

pablomakaveli

oscarBravo wrote: »

This isn't your personal playground. Banned for a month for trolling.

Well done. that guys been trolling for the last few days especially on the united ireland thread. nearly every post he made had delibrately provocative opinions and remarks. everyone should have just ignored him though.

anyway back to the main point. i think extremists like these give all people who believe in religion a bad name.

as long as someones beliefs dont involve hurting other people (either physically or mentally) or trying to force thier beliefs on someone else then let them believe what they want no matter how ridiculous it seems to others.

islam should be open to criticism just like every other religion. if something isn't open to criticism the negative aspects of it will never be improved.

SeanW

I HOPE he's trolling and that he doesn't actually believe any of that crap.

I would be very disturbed if European natives were so full of such self-hatred as to surrender our way of life to Islamofascist bigots.

(Just want to make this clear lest some pinhead accuse me of racism) I have no problem per se with Muslims who come to our countries and accept the laws, customs and culture of their adopted nation.

But in the interests of protecting what we all love about Western civilisation, I think this kind of thing deserves a very sharp response, and I hope the people behind this get a steep punishment and don't get out of it because of sympathy for their religious beliefs.

djpbarry

pablomakaveli wrote: »

that guys been trolling for the last few days especially on the united ireland thread. nearly every post he made had delibrately provocative opinions and remarks. everyone should have just ignored him though.

Hobbes

not sure what the whole thread has to do with politics. Glad to see stupidty being reported though, maybe the OP can be as zealous on the recent news story of Muslims being gassed while praying. Cited because of some DVD released.

Hate comes in many forms.

irish_bob

while i realise o morris was trolling , in a very clever way i might add , its interesting that he was banned for being a trolling in general and not specifically because the disgusting views he put on this thread , views i know for a fact he doesnt believe

in fact i suspect had it been someone else without a history of **** stirring , they would be still allowed to sing the virtues of shariah and the like

wes

irish_bob wrote: »

while i realise o morris was trolling , in a very clever way i might add , its interesting that he was banned for being a trolling in general and not specifically because the disgusting views he put on this thread , views i know for a fact he doesnt believe

in fact i suspect had it been someone else without a history of **** stirring , they would be still allowed to sing the virtues of shariah and the like

So people, with opinions you don't like, and who don't break the rules should be banned then? Would it not be better to let people air such views, so they can be challenged? Wouldn't that be better in the long run?

wes

Hobbes wrote: »

not sure what the whole thread has to do with politics. Glad to see stupidty being reported though, maybe the OP can be as zealous on the recent news story of Muslims being gassed while praying. Cited because of some DVD released.

Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard about that.

oscarBravo

wes wrote: »

So people, with opinions you don't like, and who don't break the rules should be banned then? Would it not be better to let people air such views, so they can be challenged? Wouldn't that be better in the long run?

Note to everybody: this thread isn't about how the forum is moderated. Post on-topic, or don't post, cheers.

ChocolateSauce

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is an Italian comedian currently under charge of insulting the Pope. She is facing somehting like 5 years in prison for her remarks.

When Western countries stop with this sort of rubbish, then i feel we can criticise the Muslim world for their views. We are not much better, we just see it from a different angle.

Actually she's been acquitted.

Anyway, I'm extremely glad to hear that book is being published, it is very important that it is. Ironically, if there hadn't been a fuss about it I wouldn't have cared.

Fratton Fred

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Actually she's been acquitted.

Anyway, I'm extremely glad to hear that book is being published, it is very important that it is. Ironically, if there hadn't been a fuss about it I wouldn't have cared.

I missed that, must read more newspapers.

It is important that he book is pblished, just as it is important that Muslims have the right to protest about its publication, although firebombing the publishers is way over the top.

Chritians demonstrated against the film last temptation of Christ, just as they did the Di Vinci Code. whilst to us moderate or non christians these may seem mad, but then, the firebombing of a publishers will seem mad to the average moderate Muslim, of which the majority are.

Hobbes

wes wrote: »

Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard about that.

posting the source story because it lacks the artistic license that has been added to the story from where I read it from originally (and appears to be quoted as main source)

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/09/27/ddn092608evacweb.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=16

Here is the related DVD.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/pro-mccain-group-dumping_b_125969.html

ChocolateSauce

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I missed that, must read more newspapers.

It is important that he book is pblished, just as it is important that Muslims have the right to protest about its publication, although firebombing the publishers is way over the top.

Chritians demonstrated against the film last temptation of Christ, just as they did the Di Vinci Code. whilst to us moderate or non christians these may seem mad, but then, the firebombing of a publishers will seem mad to the average moderate Muslim, of which the majority are.

A totally agree, Muslims must have the right to denouce the book, provided it is not done in a threatening way.

turgon

Sand wrote: »

What was even funnier was a response to the above quote that went "That is true..." , is it? Really?

The Muslim attitude is that their sex lives are completely our business.

The other attitude is that their sex lives arent any of out business whatsoever.

They are opposites viewpoints, regardless of who suggested it, and I acknowledge that in my quote. Here, let me help you understand.

The whole point is that their is a huge clash between some western values and some Muslim values, and that some people feel firebombing is the answer.

Sand

The Muslim attitude is that their sex lives are completely our business.

The other attitude is that their sex lives arent any of out business whatsoever.

They are opposites viewpoints, regardless of who suggested it, and I acknowledge that in my quote. Here, let me help you understand.

The whole point is that their is a huge clash between some western values and some Muslim values, and that some people feel firebombing is the answer.

What made me laugh was the way you didnt blink at the blatant trolling of "turning a blind eye to women to behave like whores". All cultures are equal, amirite?

But dont get too worried about it, some guy trolled, you engaged, I laughed, the sun set and rose as normal and life continues. The only sobering thing is that many religious people do view women who arent under the thumb of the patriarchy as behaving like whores.

turgon

Sand wrote: »

But dont get too worried about it, some guy trolled, you engaged, I laughed, the sun set and rose as normal and life continues. The only sobering thing is that many religious people do view women who arent under the thumb of the patriarchy as behaving like whores.

True, just grab a copy of that catholic Alive! newspaper and youl know about it!!

wasper

In 1976 a Swedish film director made a film about Jesus Christ being homosexual. The film was banned in the UK.
The Greeks trashed any cinema that was showing 'The Last temptation'.

SeanW

I haven't seen the movie Obession, but I can't see how it can be blamed for the gas attack in Dayton. I don't think I'll bother downloading it either because I've seen all I need to in Fitna and the American commentator Glenn Beck on CNN to know that we've got some serious problems.

And before someone blamed this movie, or Fitna or any other Western right-wing production for anything remember that these moviemakers (presumably) aren't making this stuff up. All they do is take footage of Islamic leaders and preachers inciting much more hatred of their own (goading people to kill non believers and teaching children as young as 3 1/2 years old that Jews are apes and pigs, and so on) and acts of terror committed by the people they inspire (crowded trains being bombed to bits, planes crashing into towers, demonstrations in London warning all of us to "Take lessons from the examples that you can see, for you will pay with your blood" etc).

These are all things said, and acts committed in the name of God, by Islamofascists.

To the people who criticise the publications mentioned here, do you not likewise agree that Islamic extremism poses a threat to Western civilisation?

Fratton Fred

SeanW wrote: »

I haven't seen the movie Obession, but I can't see how it can be blamed for the gas attack in Dayton. I don't think I'll bother downloading it either because I've seen all I need to in Fitna and the American commentator Glenn Beck on CNN to know that we've got some serious problems.

And before someone blamed this movie, or Fitna or any other Western right-wing production for anything remember that these moviemakers (presumably) aren't making this stuff up. All they do is take footage of Islamic leaders and preachers inciting much more hatred of their own (goading people to kill non believers and teaching children as young as 3 1/2 years old that Jews are apes and pigs, and so on) and acts of terror committed by the people they inspire (crowded trains being bombed to bits, planes crashing into towers, demonstrations in London warning all of us to "Take lessons from the examples that you can see, for you will pay with your blood" etc).

These are all things said, and acts committed in the name of God, by Islamofascists.

To the people who criticise the publications mentioned here, do you not likewise agree that Islamic extremism poses a threat to Western civilisation?

all extremism poses a threat tbh.

getz

all these people do is bring islam down into the gutter-we pamper to the extremists far to much in the west

humberklog

getz wrote: »

all these people do is bring islam down into the gutter-we pamper to the extremists far to much in the west

Indeed we do. we should get more eh...extreme?

djpbarry

getz wrote: »

we pamper to the extremists far to much in the west

We do?

speedboatchase

Yes. We do.

Please stop answering questions with questions man, its patronising. Here's some trivial examples but again, examples of special practices that indicate pampering, all from our closest neighbours:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414476-details/Muslim+checkout+staff+can+refuse+to+sell+drink/article.do

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_/ai_n11828899

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027029/Hairdresser-ordered-pay-4-000-Muslim-woman-refusing-job-wears-headscarf.html

Scoobydoobydoo

O'Morris wrote: »

It's the same way that if you had a pet dog, you would treat that dog with as much respect as you would treat another human. It's the same with Muslim men, they treat their women in the way that you would treat a dog i.e. with a great deal of affection and respect.

That's lovely, and are Muslim women expected to treat their men as you would a dog, with the same kind of affection and respect?

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_/ai_n11828899

Pharmacists 'denying birth control'

Not, just Muslims who do that btw.

As for the other example, the Woman won her law suit using existing laws. I fail to see how thats pampering to anyone. If the law was changed to suit her, then fair enough you would have a point, but it wasn't, so to call it pampering is stretch.

Also, again not just Muslims who take advantage:
Registrar wins right to refuse gay weddings

As for the company allowing workers to not have to sell Alchohol. Thats a valid example, but considering the above linked case, the company is probably just watching there back considering the existing laws, which don't solely benefit Muslims, but are used by other religous groups.

Here is an example of another religous group using existing laws:
Sikh girl wins legal battle to wear kara in school

I really don't get why when Muslims use the same laws and do the same things that every other religous groups use, that it is suddenly pampering to extremism.

djpbarry

speedboatchase wrote: »

Here's some trivial examples but again, examples of special practices that indicate pampering, all from our closest neighbours:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414476-details/Muslim+checkout+staff+can+refuse+to+sell+drink/article.do

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_/ai_n11828899

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027029/Hairdresser-ordered-pay-4-000-Muslim-woman-refusing-job-wears-headscarf.html

I fail to see how any of that constitutes "pandering to extremists".

In the case of the Muslim workers who refused to handle alcohol; yes, it's a bit daft, but nobody is forcing Sainsbury's to adopt that policy. If the other employees are ok with it, then I don't really see it is a big deal. While we're on this subject, I used to work in a Spar shop with a Jewish girl who refused to work behind the deli counter because she couldn't handle ham, pork or bacon, so we just worked around it. While it wasn't a big deal, she really appreciated the effort that everyone went to in accommodating her. I also know of a vegetarian who will refuse to sit in the presence of someone eating meat; slightly different I know, but just illustrating the point that Muslims are not the only people with beliefs that may impinge on their duties at work.

SeanW

For a starters, the hairdressing shop owner claimed that hairdressers showcasing alternative styles was part of the business model. But that was placed as secondary to the "rights" of the "victim."

Maybe Sainsbury's just doesn't want to end up like Tesco?
(That guy is from Saudi Arabia, so were most of the 9/11 hijackers, and some of the footage of leaders and clerics preaching murder and Jihad in Fitna etc came from Saudi TV. It's also the case that Saudi Islam - Wahibbism, is the most backward and deranged form of that religion, possibly the craziest of any religion in the world).
Does anyone really believe this is all co-incidental?

Aparently not all Muslims share this view - the anti-Islamofascist comedian Pat Condell claims he has no difficulty buying alcohol from any Muslim-owned corner shop in his native London.

So whose sensitivities are we trying to protect here? My guess is these people.

There's only one appropriate way to deal with this kind of nonsense as far as I'm concerned - with an iron fist. If roles were reversed and it were Western people living in Saudi Arabia or some of these Middle Eastern countries, and taking the piss, you can be sure that is precisely what would happen.

wes

Sorry, your post only works if we ignore all the other groups taking advantage of the same laws, which I clearly showed.

So explain why what Muslims in those examples are some how different from what the Christians and Sikhs were doing the in examples I gave? I fail to see much of a difference.

Isn't it a registars job to marry people? Why is it ok for them to refuse on religous grounds, but when a Muslim does it, its not ok? Bizare that you seem to think these things are different.

Also, who cares what Saudi Arabia does in there country, Europe isn't Saudi Arabia. As for your iron fist business, well I don't understand, the other religous groups are taking the piss, you just seem to ignore them doing the same stuff as some Muslims. I have no problem with such cases being thrown out as long as its the same for every group and not just Muslims, who are hardly the only ones taking piss with some of this stuff.