"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[smaneck]

For a start you could start spreading news about the colonization and occupation of the mostly non-muslim West Papua by the mostly muslim indonesia.

As soon as you start protesting against the persecution of Muslims in Burma.

 

[wn123455]

As soon as you start protesting against the persecution of Muslims in Burma.

Muslims Massacre Buddhists In Myanmar > New English Review

Muslims Murder Buddhists In Burma > New English Review

http://www.christianforums.com/t7767980-32/#post65441337

 

[smaneck]

We knew you can't do it wn. All you can do is cite hate blogs.

Here is the guy behind your New English Review:

John Derbyshire: Fence Off Islam | loonwatch.com

Muslims Massacre Buddhists In Myanmar > New English Review

Muslims Murder Buddhists In Burma > New English Review

http://www.christianforums.com/t7767980-32/#post65441337

 

[wn123455]

We knew you can't do it wn. All you can do is cite hate blogs.

Here is the guy behind your New English Review:

John Derbyshire: Fence Off Islam | loonwatch.com

He has some good points on islamism.

 

[smaneck]

He has some good points on islamism.

He's an islamophobe just like you.

 

[wn123455]

He's an islamophobe just like you.

I speak out against islamism. So I am not afraid of islam. So I am not an islamophobe.

 

[smaneck]

I speak out against islamism. So I am not afraid of islam. So I am not an islamophobe.

LOL. When you have anonymity of the internet. But you carefully hide even the country you live in.

 

[wn123455]

LOL. When you have anonymity of the internet. But you carefully hide even the country you live in.

Well islamists get violent when someone makes fun of the prophet muhammad.

 

[smaneck]

Well islamists get violent when someone makes fun of the prophet muhammad.

So you are an islamophobe according to your own very limited definition.

In any case, you've never made fun of the prophet. As far as I can tell you have no sense of humor whatsoever.

 

[wn123455]

So you are an islamophobe according to your own very limited definition.

In any case, you've never made fun of the prophet. As far as I can tell you have no sense of humor whatsoever.

I made fun of the prophet muhammad before but the thread got deleted.

 

[ContraMundum]

I'm sure it's deeply troubling to some people that the narrative that the media typically portrays regarding Muslims is at odds with a lot of the information posted here. It's probably unsettling to see that Muslims are trying to combat the boogeyman status the media has given us and seeing the "other" side of the story as opposed to the side you like. To them I say: suck it up. I'm going to keep posting things about news related to the Muslims even if it's not in the negative light you wish it to be.

I think you're missing our whole point. We know most of what you say only represents a) one side of any given story and b) one side of Islam. I don't think people take your spin as seriously as you think they should, or do. We see right through it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But you openly support, act and post like one of the Muslims who is used, to make negative view of Muslims.

So you're getting upset over the fact Muslims are all viewed as hard line extremist's, but you actually seem to agree and support the hard line extremists. So you acting like the stereotype, but then moaning about the stereotype?

^^ This, basically.

I remember how she defended hacking off people's heads for allegedly belonging to the wrong sect of Islam as nothing more than "friendly fire".

I am dismayed by the recent actions of the military junta in Egypt, I really am.
That still doesn't mean that I'd want to see the Muslim Brotherhood back in the seat of power. It's a choice between pest and cholera, just as it Syria - which makes this whole mess so complicated. Real life does not always sort so neatly into good and bad, right and wrong. Sometimes, BOTH sides of a conflict are just plain wrong, and you don't want either to win.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I remember how she defended hacking off people's heads for allegedly belonging to the wrong sect of Islam as nothing more than "friendly fire".

Maybe you should read things more carefully, Jane. And choose your words more carefully. Because a lot of the things you say will "always remain incomprehensible to non-sociopaths". But I guess non-sociopaths are not "urban and well-cultured" enough for you.

I admit, I was wrong to compare the beheading to friendly fire. And I apologize for that incorrect statement of mine to anyone who was part of that conversation.

That being said, I never defended it. I very clearly pointed out that it was a terrible thing that happened and that it was going to court to be settled (and rightfully so). I was making the point that people were blowing it way out of proportion when they would not say the same thing for non-Muslims. People have double standards when it comes to something Muslims do (*gasp* "How barbaric, what terrorists! We shouldn't support any of them, they're all the same") compared to what non-Muslims do ("Terrible what happened. The guy had PTSD, family, financial, or psychological problems....not everyone from this person's group/military acts like this, though"). Case in point: the two Fort Hood shootings. No one even apparently cares about the rebels or talks about the atrocities done against them by the Syrian government but because it shines a bad light on them, people made a much bigger deal than they normally would have about that case.

You seem to have a problem with actually reading what the other person says, especially if they're in favor of Islaam. I repeated time and time again that the person who killed the Ahrar ash-Shaam member killed him not because he was from a different sect but because the Shi'aas on the battlefield in Syria are always fighters on behalf of the government.

But anyway, it has since come out that ISIS refused to go to a joint court with a neutral judge for that same case which leads me to wonder what they're afraid of. The fact that both groups has agreed to go to court initially was what made me ask why people were blowing this more out of proportion than the members of the actual group whose member was murdered. Obviously that is not the case anymore - ISIS refused to go to a neutral court & are not being cooperative. Furthermore, they have apparently killed more members of other Sunni groups and are unrepentant about it.

 

[ContraMundum]

Maybe you should read things more carefully, Jane. And choose your words more carefully. Because a lot of the things you say will "always remain incomprehensible to non-sociopaths". But I guess non-sociopaths are not "urban and well-cultured" enough for you.

I admit, I was wrong to compare the beheading to friendly fire. And I apologize for that incorrect statement of mine to anyone who was part of that conversation.

That being said, I never defended it. I very clearly pointed out that it was a terrible thing that happened and that it was going to court to be settled (and rightfully so). I was making the point that people were blowing it way out of proportion when they would not say the same thing for non-Muslims. People have double standards when it comes to something Muslims do (*gasp* "How barbaric, what terrorists! We shouldn't support any of them, they're all the same") compared to what non-Muslims do ("Terrible what happened. The guy had PTSD, family, financial, or psychological problems....not everyone from this person's group/military acts like this, though"). Case in point: the two Fort Hood shootings. No one even apparently cares about the rebels or talks about the atrocities done against them by the Syrian government but because it shines a bad light on them, people made a much bigger deal than they normally would have about that case.

You seem to have a problem with actually reading what the other person says, especially if they're in favor of Islaam. I repeated time and time again that the person who killed the Ahrar ash-Shaam member killed him not because he was from a different sect but because the Shi'aas on the battlefield in Syria are always fighters on behalf of the government.

But anyway, it has since come out that ISIS refused to go to a joint court with a neutral judge for that same case which leads me to wonder what they're afraid of. The fact that both groups has agreed to go to court initially was what made me ask why people were blowing this more out of proportion than the members of the actual group whose member was murdered. Obviously that is not the case anymore - ISIS refused to go to a neutral court & are not being cooperative. Furthermore, they have apparently killed more members of other Sunni groups and are unrepentant about it.

You seem to be set on applying differing scales and measures in your analysis. When people are murdered in a civil society- it's a crime. The authorities are to act and judge accordingly. When people slaughter each other in war, it's not for civil authorities to send the police around to arrest people. It's a declared openly hostile environment with combatants. It's not pretty but there it is. War crimes are not so easy to define.

So, if rebels get slaughtered, tortured or whatever in a war zone, it's sad but it's war and they knew what they were in for when they signed up for it...and they do their fair share of giving it back too. That's war. Awful eh?

...but when some misguided or mentally ill sociopathic violent person decides he has the right to murder someone in other circumstances, it's a crime and a matter for the police.

So, if Muslims are the victims of legit crimes in civil societies, then let the authorities deal with it. In fact one of the marks of a good society that has the rule of law properly enforced (in Judaism for example it's taught that this is a commandment for all mankind to establish courts of law- given to Noah for all his descendants) However, to equate that kind of murder to the killings fields of a war zone- especially with volunteer combatants- is just not balanced.

We all know that the predominantly Muslim Middle East has always been a bit of mess more or less. But we can't a) solve their problems or b) accept the blame for them. People over there need to work it out for themselves, if they can. In the evolution of religion and society they're still a little behind. Europe was like that not that long ago.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Actually, I've spent quite a few posts on defending moderate muslims against the likes of wn12345 and his lopsided vantage point, debunking his insane conspiracy theories and calling him out as the hater he is, in spite of his protestations to the contrary.

The reason why you haven't noticed this, Muslimah, is possibly because you are NOT a moderate muslim, but instead embrace a stark tribalism that sorts the world into muslims ("one of us") and non-muslims ("one of them").

I won't deny that I am not a big fan of Islam and its ideological implications, especially with regards to sex and gender, nor will I deny that it is fundamentally incompatible with my political ideals.
But yeah, the military junta in Egypt IS perfectly rotten. No cultured cosmopolitans there. Too bad that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't exactly a viable alternative to that, either, eh?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Actually, I've spent quite a few posts on defending moderate muslims against the likes of wn12345 and his lopsided vantage point, debunking his insane conspiracy theories and calling him out as the hater he is, in spite of his protestations to the contrary.

And you've also spent quite a few posts showing your ignorant disdain for Islaam such as calling my Lord an insane deity, calling the Islaamic slaughter incomprehensible to non-sociopaths, and otherwise using as many inflammatory words as you can get in whenever you have the opportunity to bash Islaam.

That is, of course, until you find out that Jews have the same practice. Then you'll actually take the time to read about the practice and rush to take back your words because apparently that religion is more sane than mine. Just lovely.

The reason why you haven't noticed this, Muslimah, is possibly because you are NOT a moderate muslim, but instead embrace a stark tribalism that sorts the world into muslims ("one of us") and non-muslims ("one of them").

Because you define what a moderate Muslim is, Bane? And on the one hand you say that I divide the world into Muslims and non-Muslims but at the same time you divide Muslims into moderates and not? hahaha, it's almost too much.

You're not so different from your parents even if you think you are regarding Islaam and Muslims. As I said before, the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree at least in this regard.

I won't deny that I am not a big fan of Islam and its ideological implications, especially with regards to sex and gender, nor will I deny that it is fundamentally incompatible with my political ideals.

You make that so clear nearly every single time you talk about Islaam. And even when you say something positive about Islaam, it's either a backhanded compliment or it will be followed by something very subjective & insulting.

But yeah, the military junta in Egypt IS perfectly rotten. No cultured cosmopolitans there. Too bad that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't exactly a viable alternative to that, either, eh?

Why wasn't it a viable alternative? Quote specific examples which make them not a viable alternative and then tell me why all of the western governments of the world are acceptable to you but Morsi's was not.

 

[LoAmmi]

Because you define what a moderate Muslim is, Bane? And on the one hand you say that I divide the world into Muslims and non-Muslims but at the same time you divide Muslims into moderates and not? hahaha, it's almost too much.

I would say that there is a difference between a Muslim who believes it is perfectly ok to perform terrorism and those who don't. If one calls the former ones "Extremists" than the contrast to that would be "Moderate" since they are not on the extreme.

I'm open to any other words you'd like to use, to be honest.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I would say that there is a difference between a Muslim who believes it is perfectly ok to perform terrorism and those who don't. If one calls the former ones "Extremists" than the contrast to that would be "Moderate" since they are not on the extreme.

I'm open to any other words you'd like to use, to be honest.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you calling me an extremist? Or are you just explaining what your definition of extremist and moderate is?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why wasn't it a viable alternative? Quote specific examples which make them not a viable alternative and then tell me why all of the western governments of the world are acceptable to you but Morsi's was not.

This blog sums it up rather well:

How president Morsi ousted himself. A too short overview. « Inside Arab Spring

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

This blog sums it up rather well:

How president Morsi ousted himself. A too short overview. « Inside Arab Spring

How about summing it up in your own words why he was not a viable alternative and then explain why the Western governments of the world are acceptable to you.