US ambassador killed in Libya

asherbassad

old hippy wrote: »

Just because someone is a Muslim, it doesn't make them an Arab. Iraqis, for example are Persian, not Arab.

Iraqis are Arabs. Iranians are Persian and speak Farsi.

old hippy

asherbassad wrote: »

Iraqis are Arabs. Iranians are Persian and speak Farsi.

My mistake, I'm all at sea today

old_aussie

old hippy wrote: »

The tedious repetition, as useful as graffiti on a toilet door.

It's what local muslims keep telling me.

old_aussie

old hippy wrote: »

Just because someone is a Muslim, it doesn't make them an Arab. Iraqis, for example are Persian, not Arab.

Really

mise_me_fein3

asherbassad wrote: »

This is perhaps one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
If he hates Islam and all religions then he's not a fcuking muslim, is he??

Or do you think that muslims are something different to followers of Islam?
(It would explain a lot).

He cannot openly say that he hates Islam. He is from Saudi. Do you think that would go down well?

He's writing a thesis on how religion corrupts society.....if he openly leaves Islam they will want to kill him in his homeland and it would make things tough for his family so he will just play the game when he visits his homeland.....

Shove you dumbest thing up your ar se asherbassad

old_aussie

Another message from Iran's Supreme Leader.

Shows that iran does support and wage terrorism against the west.

just shows that muslims are incapable of resolving matters with diplomacy and negotiation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9490878/Irans-supreme-leader-orders-fresh-terror-attacks-on-West.html

wes

old_aussie wrote: »

Another message from Iran's Supreme Leader.

WTF does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Also, this is according to unnamed "western inteligence officials as well btw". Odd how no one is willing to put names to these claims.

old_aussie wrote: »

Shows that iran does support and wage terrorism against the west.

Iran aren't the only ones at it btw:

Our Men in Iran?

Also US politicans openly support this group....

old_aussie wrote: »

just shows that muslims are incapable of resolving matters with diplomacy and negotiation.

Iran doesn't equal Muslims, firstly. There regime is from a minority sect.

Secondly, there hardly unique in engaging in violence, for example, the Western invasion of Iraq, over imaginary WMDs. In fact Iran hasn't engaged in a war of aggression in over 200 years. Something that can't be said for a lot of other countries in the region and the rest of the world.

Now they have certainly sponsored violent groups, but again that is not something unique to Iran.

Finally, Iran has nothing to do with this thread, and this is another of your pointless war mongering rants imho.

czx

old hippy wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that Ireland is not a great role model anyone should be aspiring to these days/

Get some perspective. Ireland stands head and shoulders above these places.

SocSocPol

old_aussie wrote: »

Really

The overwhelming majority do not live in the middle east, they live in Asia, in countries as diverse as Malyasia and Pakistan.

Overheal

asherbassad wrote: »

Now the US ambassador has been killed in Libya.

Can anyone explain to me why 2 US warships are being moved to the Libyan Coast?

When an American is killed in any other country the place isn't invaded.
Of course many will spit out the "this is an act of war" rubbish.....but it isn't.

Really depends on the warships. "Warships" serve a great many functions. It was a US Carrier group that provided emergency relief aid to Japan in the first days after the Tsunami and the Fukushima crisis.

2 ships can potentially launch a small extraction team if the US decides to withdraw more officials from Libya. The assumption that 2 ships = invasion is ridiculous. The assumption that one death would trigger an all-out invasion is also ridiculous.

SamHarris

Gbear wrote: »

A nice gesture by non-dickheaded Libyans who I presume are in fact more representative of the population as a whole:
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

double post, my bad.

SamHarris

Gbear wrote: »

A nice gesture by non-dickheaded Libyans who I presume are in fact more representative of the population as a whole:
http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

And why do you presume that?

Not saying you are wrong, but its hardly a presumption people would allow from a demonstration of the "other side" no matter how much bigger.

I like how the people who become furious with the vilification of Muslims are often the first to use the murder of an American diplomat to seek to vilify America. Thats not directed at this comment, just alot of those that are so desperate not to make a judgment on Islam, or parts of Islam, very clearly are not doing it for "moral" reasons - they almost always do the same with other parties - its their childish politics.

davet82

I noticed on the news earlier Yemen have joined in with Libya and Egypt in attacking their American embassy.

I'm sure there will be more attacks elsewhere to follow.

SamHarris

wes wrote: »

WTF does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

Also, this is according to unnamed "western inteligence officials as well btw". Odd how no one is willing to put names to these claims.



Iran aren't the only ones at it btw:

Our Men in Iran?

Also US politicans openly support this group....



Iran doesn't equal Muslims, firstly. There regime is from a minority sect.

Secondly, there hardly unique in engaging in violence, for example, the Western invasion of Iraq, over imaginary WMDs. In fact Iran hasn't engaged in a war of aggression in over 200 years. Something that can't be said for a lot of other countries in the region and the rest of the world.

Now they have certainly sponsored violent groups, but again that is not something unique to Iran.

Finally, Iran has nothing to do with this thread, and this is another of your pointless war mongering rants imho.

This idea that Iran's not invading another country for 200 years is a ringing endorsment isnt based in reality. A group of people not doing something that they cannot do or would bring about their own desruction by carrying out the act can hardly claim its because of their ideals. Especialy considering the rehotric that near weekly comes from their delightful officials.

davet82

davet82 wrote: »

I noticed on the news earlier Yemen have joined in with Libya and Egypt in attacking their American embassy.

I'm sure there will be more attacks elsewhere to follow.

you can now add Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia to the list

SamHarris

Gee Bag wrote: »

Thing is, I think the criteria you listed are complete and utter bullsh1t. They are like something out of a Rudyard Kipling poem. Frankly, I'm surprised you didn't mention the White Man's Burden.

Im not a cultural imperialist - I dont believe for a second we should bother bringing out way of life to other areas of the glove. Thats the white mans burden - not a rejection of cultural and societal relativsim.

Really? Material wealth and the advance of technology and science is a bad way of judging the success of a society?

Well then maybe personal , political and religious freedom?

Again, a society based on Islam is based on the complete falacy that the creator of the universe issued them with these rules. If you do not believe that then it is very clearly restrictions, blocks to progess and personal liberty for no reason. To believe it is 'just as good' as maximising other areas of human well being then you must believe in a creator, one that left rules for humanity in the 7th century.

Your honestly claiming that (not that this is Islam) but a father who kills his daughter because of shame following a rape is 'just as good' as a father who culturally is more disposed to helping his daugheter recover? That is one of the many things that is dictated, or informed by culture and society. To believe they are all equal in every respect is self evidently wrong.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Scientific and technological criteria are pretty much the same thing. The Arabs were once the worlds technological super power, so were the Chinese. Now the west is in the ascendency. Swings and roundabouts really.

Sure, so 500 years ago Arab soceity may have been more advanced in this regard than the West. That hardly has any baring on today.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Economically speaking, the west can't really be pointing too many fingers at any one else given the fact that we are all pretty much leveraged up to out eyeballs so we can buy useless shyte we can neither afford or need. Furthermore, the west (meaning the US, UK and France) have been continually fcuking up the Middle East from pretty soon after the invention of the combustion engine in the pursuit of oil. They have a pretty good reason to be p1ssed off with us.

Sure, with regard to the budgets of our governments we could do better.

The economic comment was with regard to a country being able to bring nearly all their citizens to an untold level of personal wealth without the need for enormous reserves of some kind of rescource per head.

You can believe this is 'not important' but its still a fact. We are not the only to have succeded in doing this but to claim it is not an imporant part of life is entirely to hippy esque.

There is any number of groups or people that could chose to violently retaliate for any number of wrongs. Its irrelevant to whether the manner and the basis on which they organise their society is as good or better than others.

If the Arabs feel so entitled to retaliate against the US, then you would also have to recognise the US' right to retaliate in turn. Its either wrong or right.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Military prowess is something I put very little stock in. Enough to defend your own borders is plenty. The Soviet Union had the largest military in the world, fat lot of good it did them in the long run.

Right there you are making a value based descision and kind of proving my point. If you have values, you can say one society is better than another becuase it promotes or not the values you find important.

And I wasnt saying it was important to everyone, I was saying it was important to the sense of shame that Islamic extremist groups have built into them. Hence the reason they are so caught up in harking back to the days when Islam could spread violently throughout the world.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Culture is entirley subjective. Western culture gave us Caravaggio and Shakespeare. It also gave us Westlife, the X-Factor and Big Brother. Italians tend to enjoy music I think is utter shyte, Indians like Bollywood movies which are my idea of hell. Doesn't mean that I think that I'm culturally superior to them. It just means they have different tastes and sensibilities.

Sure, some things are not easy to judge the "value" of. That does not mean the judgment is vacous - it has an enormous effect on the wellbeing of individuals in a society.

This is easy to illustrate with medicine - there are many cultural branches of medicine but to claim that crushing up rhino horn is a better aphrodisiac to viagra is still factually false.

If you believe that a soceity should maximise certain aspects of human wellbeing - then you can make factual statements about the best way we know how to deal with those aspects. Again, unless their founding claim is true- that Allah told them to cover their women in cloth, then it is self evidently not as good a way to run a society as allowing a women to wear whatever they wish, even said burqa.

Gee Bag wrote: »

What makes a worthwhile society for me? A strong emphasis on the importance of the family, genuine empathy for your fellow citizens, being hospitable to strangers, a willingness to share no matter how little you have, not drinking until you puke, etc. All of which are of great importance in Islamic countries.

Sure and other believe freedom of religion, seperation of church and state, freedom of expression and association and a seperate judiciary are all important aspects of society - ones whole heartedly rejected to one extent or another by Islamic countries.

I did say it was subjective, but some subjective claims can be made on a lie, for example that god gave us rules.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Daft point at the end of your post about slavery. How you managed to arrive at that conclusion from a one-line post by me is baffling.

No its not daft, its one of the conclusions that would have to be reached for cultural relativism to have to be entirely true.

jmayo

SamHarris wrote: »

Do you think they should let people get away with it?

My guess is enormous preassure and strong words for the Libyan government to do something. A push for an official apology and at least some arrests before the elections.

If Libya seems to not be co operating, then yes I think they will take people out.

An one of the first officals to come out yesterday blamed the Americans for not being prepared for an attack by a mob who want to kill people who happen to come from the same country as a cr** film maker who in a very poor fashion takes the pis* out of their religion. :rolleyes:

asherbassad wrote: »

Now the US ambassador has been killed in Libya.

Can anyone explain to me why 2 US warships are being moved to the Libyan Coast?

Must countries take a very dim view of top members of their diplomatic staff being attacked and murdered.
They move ships into the area to help with any possible withdrawal of other existing staff and indeed other citizens of their country.

There may need to withdraw all US citizens since the people who share your believes actually might want to fooking attack anyone that happens to come from the same country.

asherbassad wrote: »

When an American is killed in any other country the place isn't invaded.
Of course many will spit out the "this is an act of war" rubbish.....but it isn't.

Ehh he was an ambassador in case it slipped your little mind.
What is an act of war to you ?

You really are a great advertisement for those who lump all muslims together and you just copperfasten the thoughts of many that do not want a strong muslim community in our country.

brimal

The use of Islam has created a culture of punishment, violence and death throughout Muslim-majority countries - it's no wonder every protest turns violent.

Governing your country based on the words of a fictitious god sent to a violent thug in the 7th century in absolutely retarded.

Nobody should be afraid to criticize Islam, it is only a belief system.

Overheal

brimal wrote: »

The use of Islam has created a culture of punishment, violence and death throughout Muslim-majority countries - it's no wonder every protest turns violent.

Of the Irish protests I'm aware of, whenever people are bothered their hole enough to actually protest, it usually also results in violence. Student protests come to mind. What was that, 2010? 2011?

Governing your country based on the words of a fictitious god sent to a violent thug in the 7th century in absolutely retarded.

And a guy who was violently crucified gets sealed up in a cave for 3 days and poof - that's [any more] believable?

Nobody should be afraid to criticize Islam, it is only a belief system.

And only the extremist faction of Islam is at fault here. It would be a bit like placing Christians under a single banner. Arguments about the Koran similarly always sound to me like arguments about Leviticus. Fact is not everyone is wholly governed by their religious beliefs.

Headshot

Crucifix wrote: »

The movie in question:

retaliation is out already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX5MTFWSuM8

Border-Rat

SamHarris wrote: »

This idea that Iran's not invading another country for 200 years is a ringing endorsment isnt based in reality. A group of people not doing something that they cannot do or would bring about their own desruction by carrying out the act can hardly claim its because of their ideals. Especialy considering the rehotric that near weekly comes from their delightful officials.

Iran could flatten Azerbaijan in a week. Just one example.

SamHarris

Overheal wrote: »

Of the Irish protests I'm aware of, whenever people are bothered their hole enough to actually protest, it usually also results in violence. Student protests come to mind. What was that, 2010? 2011?

Of this nature? Hardly. Running up a banner to Islam on 9 11 was just ugly, murdering an ambassador and those around him is not something you should make an equivolant with people throwing a few bottles over.

The REASONS people violently protest should also be very important. Trying to pretend that killing someone over a movie is as understandable as killing someone, say, during a protest for democracy in a given country should not be looked on in the same light, regadless of how excited Muslims get over their relgiion.

Overheal wrote: »

And a guy who was violently crucified gets sealed up in a cave for 3 days and poof - that's [any more] believable?

Sure, and if people where daily killed in the name of Christianity I have a feeling alot more people would be willing to recognise it as a problem with Christianity, instead of trying to say 'Islam is silly to!'.

Overheal wrote: »

And only the extremist faction of Islam is at fault here. It would be a bit like placing Christians under a single banner. Arguments about the Koran similarly always sound to me like arguments about Leviticus. Fact is not everyone is wholly governed by their religious beliefs.

It's a far bigger segment that recognize these attacks as something that should be condoned than people are comfortable with recongiznig - something like 30% of British Muslims and 7/7 as an example. Its not a hand ful of people who get angry over a movie or a cartoon - its 300+ people dying over the Mohammed cartoons.

Yes, it is the extremist Islam that is at fault. Which is a signifacnt part of the Muslim population - for example 30 % of the vote in Libya went to the Salafists.

Its irrelevant if not everyone is governed by it - if that was required you could say nearly nothing about any relgiion good or bad. It is a persistent, broadbased problem that far to many people are willing to defend or turn the other way about.

SamHarris

Border-Rat wrote: »

Iran could flatten Azerbaijan in a week. Just one example.

Exactly like Iraq could flatten Kuwait in a week.

token101

old hippy wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that Ireland is not a great role model anyone should be aspiring to these days/

Why? I'd say the North is a fairly good example of how to leave the religious bullsh*t behind and just get on with living in peace. Ireland is still ranked up near the top of almost all liveability surveys. Despite the economic situation it's still an excellent example.

therewillbe

I had to have a look at the video,What a load of BS.Monty Python without the laugh`s.Get over it guy`s,Take it on the chin.God IS not great.He is in your mind!

SamHarris

Why do I have the distinct feeling that those who are seeking to justify the reaction, or desperatly trying to convince people that Islam in general should not be judged by the actions of a large number of its adherents would be the first to rant on and on about Americans if they reacted violently to 'insults' from Muslims.

brimal

SamHarris wrote: »

Why do I have the distinct feeling that those who are seeking to justify the reaction, or desperatly trying to convince people that Islam in general should not be judged by the actions of a large number of its adherents would be the first to rant on and on about Americans if they reacted violently to 'insults' from Muslims.

I actually think some people are afraid to condemn these Muslims or even Islam, as it goes against their anti-West stance.

If ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel kicked up a fuss like this I'm sure they would fall over themselves to post about it.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Why do I have the (....)' from Muslims.

From a minority of its adherents, albeit a violent minority. Presumably they mentioned something about not judging majoritys by minoritys in whatever issue of "Young Political Scientist" you lifted your "victim mentality" meme from.

BattleCorp

token101 wrote: »

Why? I'd say the North is a fairly good example of how to leave the religious bullsh*t behind and just get on with living in peace. Ireland is still ranked up near the top of almost all liveability surveys. Despite the economic situation it's still an excellent example.

Ahem, it isn't all cuddles and love up there. Both sections of the community still hate each other as much as ever. Most people up there don't want to go back to violence but it isn't too far beneath the surface. It wouldn't take much to go back to the "Good Old Days".

joegriffinjnr

Just seen photos of the US Ambassador. Not Nice at all.

Gee Bag

SamHarris wrote: »

Im not a cultural imperialist

This was the post I initially responded to..........

They are filled with shame because their societies cannot compete scienctificaly, technologicaly, economicaly, militarily or culturaly (I could go on)

I considered that comment both conceited and ignorant in the extreme. I have never met a muslim who is ashamed of their society, thats your opinion. They may want change, thats very different to being ashamed.

Really? Material wealth and the advance of technology and science is a bad way of judging the success of a society?

Didn't say it was a bad way, I said it was not the only way. However, when you add that to the military and cultural inferiority as per your original post then you certainly do come across as a cultural imperialist.

Well then maybe personal, political and religious freedom?

These are indeed better criteria, but they were not the ones you used in your original post.

Again, a society based on Islam is based on the complete falacy that the creator of the universe issued them with these rules. If you do not believe that then it is very clearly restrictions, blocks to progess and personal liberty for no reason. To believe it is 'just as good' as maximising other areas of human well being then you must believe in a creator, one that left rules for humanity in the 7th century.

I'm an atheist. Doesn't mean I have the right to tell others what they should believe. Each to their own.

Your honestly claiming that (not that this is Islam) but a father who kills his daughter because of shame following a rape is 'just as good' as a father who culturally is more disposed to helping his daugheter recover? That is one of the many things that is dictated, or informed by culture and society. To believe they are all equal in every respect is self evidently wrong.

This is real strawman stuff. I never mentioned honour killings. You are again using the most extreme example to frame an argument which has nothing to do with the original post. A suitably ridiculous counter argument could go 'why do western fathers allow his daughters to be gang banged in porno movies instead of helping them find a good husband?'

Sure, so 500 years ago Arab soceity may have been more advanced in this regard than the West. That hardly has any baring on today.

I mentioned it to emphasise that nothing is ever permanent. The west may be top dog now, but given our very low birth rates it is highly probable that this will change in the next 50-100 yyears.

Sure, with regard to the budgets of our governments we could do better.

Private citizens and corporatins across the west have also mismanaged their budgets. The west is now at serious risk of decline due to personal and private debt.

The economic comment was with regard to a country being able to bring nearly all their citizens to an untold level of personal wealth without the need for enormous reserves of some kind of rescource per head.

The wests ability to pull ahead was in no small part initially due to wealth generated from extractive industries (Coal, Metals, etc.)

You can believe this is 'not important' but its still a fact. We are not the only to have succeded in doing this but to claim it is not an imporant part of life is entirely to hippy esque.

I'm no hippy. I run my own business, work an average 70 hour week and employ a fair few people. I still don't think money is the be all and end all.

There is any number of groups or people that could chose to violently retaliate for any number of wrongs. Its irrelevant to whether the manner and the basis on which they organise their society is as good or better than others.

If the Arabs feel so entitled to retaliate against the US, then you would also have to recognise the US' right to retaliate in turn. Its either wrong or right.

Its a question of proportionality. I have yet to see a muslim army invade and occupy the US, UK or France (Battle of Tours excepted). I have yet to see a muslim regime topple a western government in order to gain levergae over their natural resources.

Right there you are making a value based descision and kind of proving my point. If you have values, you can say one society is better than another becuase it promotes or not the values you find important.

I have no idea how you arrive at this conclusion, I dodn't make a value judgement, I pointed out a fact. Having a potentially superior military means nothing if you can't win. The Persians learnt this in Greece, the Brits and Russians in Afghanistan, the Germans in Russia, the US in Vietnam etc, etc, etc, etc.

The most blatant recent obvious example of this fallacy was the recent clusterfuck in Iraq. Military surperiority on paper means nothing if it can not be translated into victory.

And I wasnt saying it was important to everyone, I was saying it was important to the sense of shame that Islamic extremist groups have built into them. Hence the reason they are so caught up in harking back to the days when Islam could spread violently throughout the world.

This I have to agree with.

But I would stress that extremist groups are not representative of their societies as a whole.

Sure, some things are not easy to judge the "value" of. That does not mean the judgment is vacous - it has an enormous effect on the wellbeing of individuals in a society.

This is easy to illustrate with medicine - there are many cultural branches of medicine but to claim that crushing up rhino horn is a better aphrodisiac to viagra is still factually false.

I would contend that a judgement not influnced by bias towards one's own culture is next to impossible to make.

I don't think the example you chose is a good one as the medical effect can be subjected to scientific testing.

If you believe that a soceity should maximise certain aspects of human wellbeing - then you can make factual statements about the best way we know how to deal with those aspects. Again, unless their founding claim is true- that Allah told them to cover their women in cloth, then it is self evidently not as good a way to run a society as allowing a women to wear whatever they wish, even said burqa.

I genuinley have no idea what your on about here. I would point out that the burqa (and the niqab) are far from universal.

Sure and other believe freedom of religion, seperation of church and state, freedom of expression and association and a seperate judiciary are all important aspects of society - ones whole heartedly rejected to one extent or another by Islamic countries.

You didn't engage with the point I originally made re. the importance of the family life in muslim countries. Its something that has to be experienced to be understood/appreciated.

There is freedom of religion in many Muslim countries. There are still Jews in Morocco and Tunisia. Copts form a sizeable minority in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. However, Christians have been very badly affected due to the blowback from the occupation of Iraq and general post 9-11 fcukology.

Seperation of church and state is very much a western idea.

Freedom of expression and association, I can't argue with that.

No its not daft, its one of the conclusions that would have to be reached for cultural relativism to have to be entirely true.

Again, its Mr. Strawman! I never said I though all societies are equal. I originally said that because societies are different it does not imply that one is inferior.

old hippy

brimal wrote: »

The use of Islam has created a culture of punishment, violence and death throughout Muslim-majority countries - it's no wonder every protest turns violent.

Governing your country based on the words of a fictitious god sent to a violent thug in the 7th century in absolutely retarded.

Nobody should be afraid to criticize Islam, it is only a belief system.

I live in London which is not stranger to protest or riots. It's not the sole preserve of "Muslim countries".

old hippy

old_aussie wrote: »

Another message from Iran's Supreme Leader.

Shows that iran does support and wage terrorism against the west.

just shows that muslims are incapable of resolving matters with diplomacy and negotiation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9490878/Irans-supreme-leader-orders-fresh-terror-attacks-on-West.html

Your comments just show the abundance of ignorance you have to share with us. Would you say that to your Muslim friends, neighbours co-workers?

old hippy

czx wrote: »

Get some perspective. Ireland stands head and shoulders above these places.

Corrupt politicians and businessmen who pilfered from the nation? Paramilitary groups opertating north and south of the border? A rapist church that still holds sway over people? An economy in ruins? Mass unemployment? An increase in drug related crime?

LOL. You better take them blinkers off, a chara.

Yakult

old hippy wrote: »

czx wrote: »

Get some perspective. Ireland stands head and shoulders above these places.

Corrupt politicians and businessmen who pilfered from the nation? Paramilitary groups opertating north and south of the border? A rapist church that still holds sway over people? An economy in ruins? Mass unemployment? An increase in drug related crime?

LOL. You better take them blinkers off, a chara.

You could relate nearly all of that to most countries around the world right now.

brimal

old hippy wrote: »

Corrupt politicians and businessmen who pilfered from the nation? Paramilitary groups opertating north and south of the border? A rapist church that still holds sway over people? An economy in ruins? Mass unemployment? An increase in drug related crime?

LOL. You better take them blinkers off, a chara.

You seriously need to get some perspective.

Corrupt politicians, church's abuse of power, unemployment and economic woes could apply to any country.

Last time I checked Ireland doesn't kill homosexuals, minors, or apostates. Let's not even get started on a comparison of women's rights, children's rights, prisoners' rights, censorship, etc.

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

Protests the world over often turn violent - Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion.

And the so-called "Arab world" is quite diverse, you know.

You didn't see Christians going out and burning embassies and killing people over the film "Life of Brian".

old hippy

Yakult wrote: »

You could relate nearly all of that to most countries around the world right now.

Indeed you could, my tastily named moderator. Which is kind of my point; how ridiculous the notion is that somehow one country is better than an other.

Countries go through phases, the good times, the bad times. Civilisations rise and fall and empires are forged ultimately to crumble.

In a thousand years or so, we'll wonder what people were getting so worked up about...

brimal

old hippy wrote: »

Indeed you could, my tastily named moderator. Which is kind of my point; how ridiculous the notion is that somehow one country is better than an other.

Countries go through phases, the good times, the bad times. Civilisations rise and fall and empires are forged ultimately to crumble.

In a thousand years or so, we'll wonder what people were getting so worked up about...

So in the mean time, we ignore the abhorrent human rights abuses going on in this region of the world?

old hippy

hellboy99 wrote: »

You didn't see Christians going out and burning embassies and killing people over the film "Life of Brian".

You do see them bombing abortion clinics, declaring modern day crusades (Bush et Blair) or killing someone because they're the wrong kind of christian (see NI)...

old hippy

brimal wrote: »

So in the mean time, we ignore the abhorrent human rights abuses going on in this region of the world?

Of course not. We should always champion human rights, be it Burma, North Korea, Israel, USA or anywhere else.

And if we forget, I'm sure people such as yourself will remind us.

Colmustard

Why don't they just burn a bible in retaliation.

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

You do see them bombing abortion clinics, declaring modern day crusades (Bush et Blair) or killing someone because they're the wrong kind of christian (see NI)...

I was making my point just on the reactions to the film.

old hippy

Colmustard wrote: »

Why don't they just burn a bible in retaliation.

In an ideal world, Colonel, we'd all be burning books, without fear of offense.

Actually, no. I don't agree with religious texts but they are books. Best not burn them...

Colmustard

Colmustard wrote: »

Why don't they just burn a bible in retaliation.

They just like violence and are backward thinkers, they need to come out of the stone ages! Can't see things changing with these type of people anytime soon.

old hippy

hellboy99 wrote: »

I was making my point just on the reactions to the film.

People react strongly to things they feel strongly about. And no, I'm not for one minute condoning such behaviour but it does happen.

You've heard about how "Playboy of the Western World" went down on its premiere? Or even Stravinsky's "Rites of Spring"?

Anyway, you can't judge all Muslims by the acts of a minority of nutters.

old hippy

hellboy99 wrote: »

They just like violence and are backward thinkers, they need to come out of the stone ages! Can't see things changing with these type of people anytime soon.

Which types of people? All Muslims or just this mob?

snafuk35

old hippy wrote: »

People react strongly to things they feel strongly about. And no, I'm not for one minute condoning such behaviour but it does happen.

You've heard about how "Playboy of the Western World" went down on its premiere? Or even Stravinsky's "Rites of Spring"?

Anyway, you can't judge all Muslims by the acts of a minority of nutters.

Unfortunately it is a very large minority and they aren't shy about being murderously violent at the drop of a hat.

old hippy

old hippy wrote: »

Which types of people? All Muslims or just this mob?

Not all Muslims, but it's certainly more than just a mob!

old hippy

snafuk35 wrote: »

Unfortunately it is a very large minority and they aren't shy about being murderously violent at the drop of a hat.

Again with the "they". Who is this "they"?