Worldwide Protests over Bizare Youtube Movie

[moahunter]

OK, I haven't seen the clip yet of the trailer on Youtube, but what do people think about all the protests and similar going on around the world?

When I was a kid I saw "The life of Brian", and I thought it was the funniest thing. So, how come some religions can be laughed at (or made fun of, or even abused), and others can't? (although interestingly, some countries like Ireland and Norway banned this movie for many years).

Or when the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban, we didn't see Buddhists take to the streets in anger filled mass protests.

Are western ideals (freedom of speach, religion, tolerance, etc.), just incompatable with Muslim religions? If so, what does that mean for the world? Or is it just a case of better education being needed in the middle east?

[Komrade]

Basically the video claims Mohammed is a women abuser and a homosexual among others

If there was a video put out by a Mulism group calling Jesus Christ a women abuser and a homosexual you can damn well bet there would be some overzealous evangelical 'Mericans doing pretty much the same thing.

[metro]

I doubt the protests would be as violent.

[kkozoriz]

I'm sure the recent wars in Afghanistan & Iraq as well as other military operations against Muslim countries has a lot to do with it. Besides, like most everything else it's a relativly small minority of the people that are protesting and rioting. There have been counter protests by citizens of Libya and Egypt condemming the attacks.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/09/1...rican-protests

[edmonton daily photo]

I watched the video... It is garbage.. It's insulting.. It's hateful.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I watched the video... It is garbage.. It's insulting.. It's hateful.

yes, it is all of those things. and it deserves to remain relatively anonymous and unknown. but it's not alone in those things either. at least it wasn't given at the u.n. by an elected "world leader"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EBgq...e_gdata_player

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Of course the film is a senseless provocation, but the violent fanatics of the Muslim world are doing more to harm their cause than anyone else. This type of violent overreaction just plays into Netanyahu's hands by fostering sympathy for Israel.

[metro]

^ "playing into Netanyahu's hands". Can I borrow your copy of the protocols of the elders of Zion?

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

I'm sure the recent wars in Afghanistan & Iraq as well as other military operations against Muslim countries has a lot to do with it.

That has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with these people believing they are justified to do anything they want if their religion is insulted.

All you have to do is look at Obama's pacifist approach to Islam to realize that it makes no difference whether you invade their countries or bow down to them. Haters will hate.

[AShetsen]

I think the Copt who made the movie did a great disservice to his fellow Copts and unfellow Sufis.

[Dupa]

Originally Posted by Komrade

Basically the video claims Mohammed is a women abuser and a homosexual among others

If there was a video put out by a Mulism group calling Jesus Christ a women abuser and a homosexual you can damn well bet there would be some overzealous evangelical 'Mericans doing pretty much the same thing.

and you'd be protesting against thos Christians....where is your outrage against this......we all know you are a Christian hater.

[kkozoriz]

Way to live according to the words of Jesus there guys.

American Christians go to war and kill hundreds of thousands. Don't think that they didn't know exactly what they were doing.

" This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. " - George W. Bush, September 16, 2001


The permit for "The Innocence of Muslims," which was filmed in Los Angeles County in August 2011 under the title "Desert Warriors," has been pulled from public view by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department over safety concerns, TheWrap reported.

Media for Christ, a Duarte, Calif.-based Christian nonprofit group, applied for the film permit, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported. The charity's misson statement is to "glow Jesus' light" to the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...nada&ir=Canada

[AShetsen]

You know, in the end condemning the damn Islamists, condemning the damn US, Christian or otherwise, condemning the damn Jews/Israelis (has that been done in this thread?) is all too easy.

If we must condemn someone, let's condemn the person who made the movie.

As a result people have died.

Now you may say it's those damn ******* (fill in the blank for your enemy of choice) who have killed, whether by looting, bombing, systematic occupation, or whatever. True enough.

However, all that is the background of the world we live in. Not in the sense that it's just noise we should ignore (though many sane people do precisely that), but in the sense that those are undeniable facts and are subject to the motion of cause and effect.

That people who had nothing to do with the original movie were going to be killed is a predictable result. You may deplore it and blame whoever all you like, but it is a predictable result.

The person who made the movie should have known it would cause riots and bloodshed.

It has caused riots and bloodshed. Not just in diplomatic precincts, but in neighborhoods inhabited by despised and now pogrom'ed minorities.

That is much too high a price to pay for the abstract freedom of speech of one person sitting in safety overseas posting videos on Youtube. Regardless of whether what his movie says is correct, lies, or otherwise.

He is the monster. Ultimately he is the one to be blamed.

[Thomas Hinderks]

With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility...but it is not enforced, nor is it a popular concept.

Doesn't matter who (individual, media, artist) their freedom to express is guaranteed but they seem to be shielded from the effects of their actions.

Time to focus a little more on the responsibility side of the education.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

You know, in the end condemning the damn Islamists, condemning the damn US, Christian or otherwise, condemning the damn Jews/Israelis (has that been done in this thread?) is all too easy.

If we must condemn someone, let's condemn the person who made the movie.

As a result people have died.

Now you may say it's those damn ******* (fill in the blank for your enemy of choice) who have killed, whether by looting, bombing, systematic occupation, or whatever. True enough.

However, all that is the background of the world we live in. Not in the sense that it's just noise we should ignore (though many sane people do precisely that), but in the sense that those are undeniable facts and are subject to the motion of cause and effect.

That people who had nothing to do with the original movie were going to be killed is a predictable result. You may deplore it and blame whoever all you like, but it is a predictable result.

The person who made the movie should have known it would cause riots and bloodshed.

It has caused riots and bloodshed. Not just in diplomatic precincts, but in neighborhoods inhabited by despised and now pogrom'ed minorities.

That is much too high a price to pay for the abstract freedom of speech of one person sitting in safety overseas posting videos on Youtube. Regardless of whether what his movie says is correct, lies, or otherwise.

He is the monster. Ultimately he is the one to be blamed.

the killings were planned long before the release of the movie. if the movie hadn't made itself available as today's scapegoat/excuse there would have been another one found. the filmmaker - whoever it turns out to really be - deserves derision and the film deserves oblivion. but the monsters - if that's the word you want to attribute to those responsible - are those who planned and carried out and enabled and continue to defend and justify and rationalize the murders, not the jerk they want to deflect the blame onto.

[AShetsen]

A pretext is a pretext is a pretext.

It is no act of courage if you give anyone a pretext for killing someone else while sitting safe where you are.

Quite the opposite.

[Thomas Hinderks]

the killings were planned long before the release of the movie. if the movie hadn't made itself available as today's scapegoat/excuse there would have been another one found. the filmmaker - whoever it turns out to really be - deserves derision and the film deserves oblivion. but the monsters - if that's the word you want to attribute to those responsible - are those who planned and carried out and enabled and continue to defend and justify and rationalize the murders, not the jerk they want to deflect the blame onto.

Agreed completely Ken, but that does not let the producer off the hook as the ongoing protests and violence were not likely a part of the attack plan.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[kcantor]

^

the producer was/is a jerk. the film was/is garbage, insulting, hateful. while that might be grounds for protest, it is no excuse for violence and murder and it's certainly no justification for violence and murder that would have taken place regardless.

^^

?????

no one - least of all me - identified the film or the producer as courageous (see above).

but you are right in identifying the film as a pretext - noting that a pretext is "a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason". which is exactly what i identified it as. those that carried out their own chosen course of action remain the ones who are responsible for it and should be held accountable for it.

[kkozoriz]

When a country has troops occupying numerous countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) and is supporting another country threatening war against Iran, the Muslims are of course going to see the movie as an ongoing assault against them regardless of the source of it.

It didn't help things when Mitt Romney accused Obama of apologizing to the protesters when the embassy did no such thing. They condemned the movie well in advance of the attack on the embassy, something Romney did himself yesterday.

There have been numerous counter protests in Egypt and Libya against he embassy attacks. Strange that they don't get the news coverage.

The movie was a fraud, with changed dialog dubbed over the original. It was produced by a Coptic Christian with the backing of a Christian organization. It's easy for them to be brave while sitting in L.A. and covering themselves in the First Amendment. It's too bad that other people had to die for their right to spread hatred.

It's funny how the Oklahoma City bombing and the Atlanta bombings, including the one at the Olympics and on gay bars and abortion clinics, and the assassination of doctors who provide abortion services, or people who fly airplanes into I.R.S. offices aren't called Christian terrorism.

[sweetcrude]

All of this because of YouTube movie? Please...

This calls for perspective and an appropriate response from the international community doesn't it?
How in the hell can anyone say that this is what we are getting?

The response we are getting is an embarrassment to humanity.

When did we stop calling a spade a spade?

Chalk this up to some idiot who knowingly wants to be provocative, and leagues of people who haven't yet mastered the art of restraint.

Final word goes to England Dan and John Ford Coley.

[Gemini]

Yeah, don't you just love it when you hear certain religious yahoos telling you that their religion is based on peace, love and exceptance while in the backround they are beating the brains out of each other, bombing whatever they see fit and generally just causing mayhem. Just another day at the office for some of them.

[ctzn-Ed]

what has me perplexed is that this whole fiasco followed shortly after Canada pulled out it's embassy staffs in Iran... Understandably, this incident was blamed on a movie producer, but somehow my sinister mine tells me there is something more to it than that. Could this be used for America to, once again, welcome itself into the region? The news did mentioned two warship were sent to that region after the ambassador was killed. Something just does not add up here. with all said, i hope there is peace within all of us!

[Gemini]

Well it could have been that there were warships fairly close by so they were dispatched there. Usually there is something brewing and the movie could have been just the catalyst to set it off. I wonder how much monetary aid is sent by the west to those countries that are rioting. Maybe they should stop the hand outs.

[AShetsen]

To KCantor: "no one - least of all me - identified the film or the producer as courageous (see above)."

I apologize directly if I made the imputation you personally had. Please take my previous comment as a generality.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by AShetsen

To KCantor: "no one - least of all me - identified the film or the producer as courageous (see above)."

I apologize directly if I made the imputation you personally had. Please take my previous comment as a generality.

on a personal level, apology accepted. as a generality, the filmmaker was far from courageous and as a generality i still disagree that selecting the film as the current chosen pretext should be accepted as any more than just that - a pretext which does not excuse the choices already made or the actions taken.

[jagators63]

why is muslim is so against anyone who insult Prophet Mohammed or Islam ??

Problem started with one man, whose name Ishamel , he is the father of Arab people. he is the son of Abraham and his Egyptian mother name is Hagar , who is Abraham's servant.

look at Genesis 16:12

This son of yours will be a wild man, as untamed as a wild donkey! He will raise his fist against everyone, and everyone will be against him. Yes, he will live in open hostility against all his relatives.”


so you see that is why many people in middle east does not like America or Israel.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed

what has me perplexed is that this whole fiasco followed shortly after Canada pulled out it's embassy staffs in Iran... Understandably, this incident was blamed on a movie producer, but somehow my sinister mine tells me there is something more to it than that. Could this be used for America to, once again, welcome itself into the region? The news did mentioned two warship were sent to that region after the ambassador was killed. Something just does not add up here. with all said, i hope there is peace within all of us!

You noticed that too, eh?

I also find it suspicious that these two embassies were attacked simultaneously and with heavy weapons by what we are supposed to believe were "spontaneous angry mobs". It just doesn't feel very spontaneous to me. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

[Gemini]

^There are alot of people who don't realize we are in the 21st. century.

[ctzn-Ed]

Can you expound your point further Gemini?

[ctzn-Ed]

Originally Posted by jagators63

why is muslim is so against anyone who insult Prophet Mohammed or Islam ??

Problem started with one man, whose name Ishamel , he is the father of Arab people. he is the son of Abraham and his Egyptian mother name is Hagar , who is Abraham's servant.

look at Genesis 16:12

This son of yours will be a wild man, as untamed as a wild donkey! He will raise his fist against everyone, and everyone will be against him. Yes, he will live in open hostility against all his relatives.”


so you see that is why many people in middle east does not like America or Israel.

Jag, if you want to discuss religion, open up a new thread. Now stop this crap. Did you read the title? Better yet, take your *** to church!

[ctzn-Ed]

Thanks for the correction moderator!

[Gemini]

Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed

Can you expound your point further Gemini?

No. After what you just said to jag you would be telling me the same thing.

[Gemini]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

I watched the video... It is garbage.. It's insulting.. It's hateful.

What, no bike paths in it.
Just joking.....................

[ctzn-Ed]

Gemini, that is due to the fact that what he attempted is out of context to the topic of discussion. Furthermore, religion is personal and should be left in one's private sanctuary. If this thread was pertaining to the bible, i would not have an issue with that. he has now, twice, attempted to pull the bible into topics where it need not be. Im not religious but spiritual. I also respect people's right to their beliefs; but i do not throw my doctrinations at people believing it to be right for a point of view.

[The_Cat]

To think of all the progress that took place with Arab Spring, a questionable movie like this was released.

[Gemini]

Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed

Gemini, that is due to the fact that what he attempted is out of context to the topic of discussion. Furthermore, religion is personal and should be left in one's private sanctuary. If this thread was pertaining to the bible, i would not have an issue with that. he has now, twice, attempted to pull the bible into topics where it need not be. Im not religious but spiritual. I also respect people's right to their beliefs; but i do not throw my doctrinations at people believing it to be right for a point of view.

It seems you are the only one that took jags post the wrong way.
There are a fair number of people that post, like you, who are non religious.
They would not fight in the name God (or whatever you care to call him/her). As these riots appear to be caused by a religious movie, jag sent us that scripture to maybe throw some light on why these people are rioting.
He is intitled to his post as much as you are. I did not take offence by it as he did not intend any offence. Now, by tearing jag a new one you were not respecting his beliefs or right to say them. I am sure jag respects your right to be spiritual rather than religious.

[ctzn-Ed]

Indeed!

[ctzn-Ed]

^
Response to Cat

^^
this topic is about a film that offended people; it is not about the bible.

[Gemini]

^Well Quran, Muslim name for Bible.
On a good note there just as many Muslims denouncing this type of rioting.

[Vincent]

It may not be about the bible, but it is about religion.

Besides, everyone is trying to explain what is going on, and Jag was doing the same. His explanation is something that most bible believers have known all along, that the Arabs were prophesied to be a violent people. So it is no surprise that there is so much constant violence in the middle east. Always has been, always will be.

Some people undoubtedly will say the bible is not to be taken seriously, but someone else could argue that this is yet another example of truth in scripture. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. Just saying that the example from scripture was and is pertinent. Take it or leave it.

[ctzn-Ed]

Originally Posted by Gemini

^Well Quran, Muslim name for Bible.
On a good note there just as many Muslims denouncing this type of rioting.

First of all, you are changing course of what we're talking about. Secondly, i would express the same sentiments to those that quote from the Quaran. There are no need for it as we're not debating religion; we are discussing a topic of ignorance and deceitfulness that led to this insidious circumstance. I take offence to it for the fact we don't need this to heighten to something else. Furthermore, how do you know others are not sensitive towards this ?; direct your opinion for yourself. I have guts to express my mind for the fact that i don't follow any doctrine.

[Gemini]

Time to crack open a bottle of Baileys.

[ctzn-Ed]

Originally Posted by Vincent

It may not be about the bible, but it is about religion.

Besides, everyone is trying to explain what is going on, and Jag was doing the same. His explanation is something that most bible believers have known all along, that the Arabs were prophesied to be a violent people. So it is no surprise that there is so much constant violence in the middle east. Always has been, always will be.

Some people undoubtedly will say the bible is not to be taken seriously, but someone else could argue that this is yet another example of truth in scripture. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. Just saying that the example from scripture was and is pertinent. Take it or leave it.

This is exactly what i was afraid would come out. we are already commencing- although unintentionally- hatred. I believe in accepting everyone for face value until they do wrong to me. People are people and i won't allow propaganda beliefs to cloud my judgement.

[Vincent]

Hatred? The only people who have shown hatred here are those fanatical Muslims. Why is it when anybody points that out they are accused of hatred?

In fact, this is exactly what the film was doing. The film was attempting to show the evil roots of that religion in order to wake people up to the truth of it. The writer obviously is tired of being politically correct by pretending that it is a peace loving religion. It's not a peace loving religion. At least it never started out that way. It won most of its converts through fear, intimidation and violence.

Even the Christian crusades were not unprovoked attacks against a peace loving people as most people think, but rather defensive responses to Islamic aggression. The Muslims were not innocent victims. They were the instigators. They aggressively and violently expanded their empire into Mecca, Persia, Byzantine, Egypt, Turkey and even Spain and France. All of Islamic expansion came at the tip of a sword. If it wasn't for the crusades at that time, Canada would be a Muslim nation today.

Nowadays, most Muslims are peace loving people and we all know that, but the religion was built on a foundation of hatred and violence. And yes Muhammed did marry a nine year old girl. And yes he did torture and murder people who refused to convert. Even today, Muslim countries murder people for converting away from Islam. They also murder girls for being victims of rape. It's not a peace loving religion. That is the point of the film. And ironically, the response to the film proved it to be true.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by Vincent

It may not be about the bible, but it is about religion.

Besides, everyone is trying to explain what is going on, and Jag was doing the same. His explanation is something that most bible believers have known all along, that the Arabs were prophesied to be a violent people. So it is no surprise that there is so much constant violence in the middle east. Always has been, always will be.

Some people undoubtedly will say the bible is not to be taken seriously, but someone else could argue that this is yet another example of truth in scripture. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread. Just saying that the example from scripture was and is pertinent. Take it or leave it.

A sobering reminder that extremists in all religions will take their scripture out of context to fit their perverted world view. I would like to think most Christians are above such interpretations.

[Vincent]

Sorry to disappoint you faraz but most Christians agree with that interpretation.

Luckily for the world Christianity is a peace loving religion, which means regardless of how we interpret that passage we do not believe it is promoting hatred or violence against them. It's only a statement about them.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by Vincent

Sorry to disappoint you faraz but most Christians agree with that interpretation.

Luckily for the world Christianity is a peace loving religion, which means regardless of how we interpret that passage we do not believe it is promoting hatred or violence against them. It's only a statement about them.

Being prejudiced against a certain group is the first step towards something worse. There might not be crusades launched by the church anymore but when Bible thumping Bush and Co. are launching wars at will, perhaps that interpretation is playing a larger role than we think.

Some food for thought.

[East McCauley]

Vincent, even if most Christians agree with that interpretation (I think most don't), does not make the statement true. If you read the historical context within these prophesies were made with an open and critical mind, you have to acknowledge that the Jewish tribes committed horrific violence against the original inhabitants of Canaan - men, women and children - that amounts to genocide.

And what any of this has to do with the religion of Islam - which did not even develop until the early 600s AD - is completely lost on me.

[piglet]

http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/20...-u-s-protests/

[MrOilers]

Muslims can't expect the rest of the world to adhere to their religious beliefs. And religions shouldn't be immune to criticism, parody, or insults.

I, like most others, hate being told what to think.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by faraz

Being prejudiced against a certain group is the first step towards something worse. There might not be crusades launched by the church anymore but when Bible thumping Bush and Co. are launching wars at will, perhaps that interpretation is playing a larger role than we think.

Some food for thought.

I don't think the Bush wars have anything to do with religion. Those wars are all about preserving power and influence.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by Gemini

On a good note there just as many Muslims denouncing this type of rioting.

Where? I have not heard any Muslim leaders or clerics publicly condemn the killings. (as usual)

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

Vincent, even if most Christians agree with that interpretation (I think most don't), does not make the statement true. If you read the historical context within these prophesies were made with an open and critical mind, you have to acknowledge that the Jewish tribes committed horrific violence against the original inhabitants of Canaan - men, women and children - that amounts to genocide.

Yup. That did happen. Whether it was justified or not depends on your view of the Bible.

And what any of this has to do with the religion of Islam - which did not even develop until the early 600s AD - is completely lost on me.

You're right. That scripture reference is not about Islam but about Arabs and not all Arabs are Muslim. Many of them are in fact Christian. Although the vast majority of Arabs are Muslim and the vast majority of Muslims are Arabs so it's not unusual to draw a parallel.

[Dialog]

Originally Posted by Gemini

bombing whatever they see fit and generally just causing mayhem. Just another day at the office for some of them.

IEDs or drones?

[East McCauley]

^^A correction to your last sentence. The vast majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Only 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. The largest countries by Muslim population are Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, none of which are Arab countries. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lim_population

[Vincent]

I sit corrected.

[overoceans]

delete

[overoceans]

delete

[overoceans]

Originally Posted by East McCauley

^^A correction to your last sentence. The vast majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Only 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. The largest countries by Muslim population are Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, none of which are Arab countries. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lim_population

Not to mention that there are arab Christian communities of long standing. One wonders how they feel about about Vince's statement that the Bible prophesized arabs to be a violent people.

Vince:

Sure, Jags is free to come on and spout the view that the Bible says arabs are predestined to be violent. By the same token, a Scientologist is free to go onto a geology discussion board and say that, according to L. Ron Hubbard, the intergalactic warrior Xenu is holed up in a volcano somewhere. Doesn't mean that it makes for informative discussion, or should be treated as such.

[Vincent]

Do you do this in other threads too? If somebody says something you don't believe to be true, do you tell them that it doesn't "make for informative discussion"?

Nobody said you had to agree, and you always have the right to ignore.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Gemini

What, no bike paths in it.
Just joking.....................

Bikes are ungodly.. That's why I like them so much!!

[edmonton daily photo]

So many things at work here... Poopr foreign policy on behalf of the western world, over zealous fundamentalist blaming USA for their problems and an oppressed under educated population that is fed propaganda of some sort from a young age.

I am very blessed I can sit here and say ( I don't mean the following btw, I simply can say it) I hate my gov't and I hate organized religion. Not only can I say that but I can peacefully and respectfully bring about change if i so wish.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by overoceans

Not to mention that there are arab Christian communities of long standing. One wonders how they feel about about Vince's statement that the Bible prophesized arabs to be a violent people.

Vince:

Sure, Jags is free to come on and spout the view that the Bible says arabs are predestined to be violent. By the same token, a Scientologist is free to go onto a geology discussion board and say that, according to L. Ron Hubbard, the intergalactic warrior Xenu is holed up in a volcano somewhere. Doesn't mean that it makes for informative discussion, or should be treated as such.

Well said.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by Vincent

Even the Christian crusades were not unprovoked attacks against a peace loving people as most people think, but rather defensive responses to Islamic aggression. The Muslims were not innocent victims. They were the instigators. They aggressively and violently expanded their empire into Mecca, Persia, Byzantine, Egypt, Turkey and even Spain and France. All of Islamic expansion came at the tip of a sword. If it wasn't for the crusades at that time, Canada would be a Muslim nation today.

Is that why the crusaders even sacked and looted the Christian cities along the way such as Constantinople and killed the Christian inhabitants with it?

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by faraz

Is that why the crusaders even sacked and looted the Christian cities along the way such as Constantinople and killed the Christian inhabitants with it?

all true enough but at some point things that happened four or five or six or seven hundred years ago also shift from being explanatory to being pretexts...

[faraz]

Originally Posted by kcantor

all true enough but at some point things that happened four or five or six or seven hundred years ago also shift from being explanatory to being pretexts...

No one cited the crusades as a reason but Vincent decided to bring it up so just replying to him. It's obvious he's got a chip on his shoulder when it comes to Muslims.

[edmonton daily photo]

Did I just flashback to the dark ages?.. Crusades....

O my Jesus....

O well I always wanted a castle!

[kkozoriz]

There's evangelical Christians that are calling the current times "The Tenth Crusade"

In August 2001 The Philadelphia Trumpet a Protestant magazine published article The Last Crusade with opening lines "Most people think the crusades for Jerusalem are a thing of the past—over forever. They are wrong. Preparations are being made for a final crusade, and it will be the bloodiest of all!"

G. W. Bush also used the word crusade in the run up to his two wars. Like it or not, the word crusade still resonates in the muslim world. Think of it as being the equivalent of the wests reaction to the word Jihad.

[faraz]

Since I've travelled through the Muslim world extensively, perhaps I can provide a few insights into this situation:

1. If someone made a movie about the mothers of 10 people calling her all manners of insults and epithets and posting it on the internet, I can guarantee you at least one person will punch you in the face. Majority will not but some will. The Prophet Muhammad is more beloved to most Muslims (not just the "fundamentalists") than their own parents so when someone makes a downright insulting movie, most will get very angry but still restrain themselves but some will not and punch you in the face. Just compare the number of protesters right now (few hundred maximum) to the millions that showed up during the Arab spring.

2. There is nothing wrong with protesting. Heck, in the west we do it all the time. The issue is with attacking embassies and being violent which is unacceptable. So it's important to draw the line between protesting and violence (as a side note, we Canadians do violent protests too but only when our team loses in the Stanley Cup finals).

3. Most Muslims (along with the rest of the world) don't like the American government and their policies. They have nothing against the ordinary American and you'll often notice the Americans/Europeans (particularly if you have white skin) will get the best treatment when visiting Muslim countries (at airports, government offices, etc.).

4. The Muslim world doesn't need to recall the crusades from a thousand years ago since many of them were under brutal colonial rule as recently as 50 years ago where the occupiers tried their best and often succeeded in taking people's culture and language away. So I've met people from Algeria and Tunisia who can't speak Arabic properly because the colonialists forced them to study their languages in schools (French). Equivalent to our residential schools but much worse.

5. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined with the unconditional and biased support of Israel only further adds to the mix. Now the war mongers are clamouring for Iran too (just to be clear many Muslim governments support action against Iran but the common people are very much against it).

6. If you grew up in Egypt or Tunisia or most other Arab countries, you first hand experienced the American support to the dictators. So it's not just a news item for them but rather a daily life occurrence.

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by faraz

No one cited the crusades as a reason but Vincent decided to bring it up so just replying to him. It's obvious he's got a chip on his shoulder when it comes to Muslims.

kkozoriz mentioned and even emphasized the word "crusade" in post number 12.

"American Christians go to war and kill hundreds of thousands. Don't think that they didn't know exactly what they were doing.

" This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. " - George W. Bush, September 16, 2001"

It was this reference that I was responding to.

And please don't tell me I have a chip on my shoulder. You don't know anything about me so don't pretend that you do.

[Chmilz]

About the only people I dislike more than ignorant Americans are indoctrinated extremist religious devotees, regardless of where they are.

[stinger11]

One must appreciate the American freedom of speech; no matter how sick it is. It is what it is. If they don't like the American way, then pull the plug on their internet connection, as that is American as well. They don't seem to complain about how bad some of the porn movies are, do they?

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by faraz

Since I've travelled through the Muslim world extensively, perhaps I can provide a few insights into this situation:

1. If someone made a movie about the mothers of 10 people calling her all manners of insults and epithets and posting it on the internet, I can guarantee you at least one person will punch you in the face. Majority will not but some will. The Prophet Muhammad is more beloved to most Muslims (not just the "fundamentalists") than their own parents so when someone makes a downright insulting movie, most will get very angry but still restrain themselves but some will not and punch you in the face. Just compare the number of protesters right now (few hundred maximum) to the millions that showed up during the Arab spring.

2. There is nothing wrong with protesting. Heck, in the west we do it all the time. The issue is with attacking embassies and being violent which is unacceptable. So it's important to draw the line between protesting and violence (as a side note, we Canadians do violent protests too but only when our team loses in the Stanley Cup finals).

3. Most Muslims (along with the rest of the world) don't like the American government and their policies. They have nothing against the ordinary American and you'll often notice the Americans/Europeans (particularly if you have white skin) will get the best treatment when visiting Muslim countries (at airports, government offices, etc.).

4. The Muslim world doesn't need to recall the crusades from a thousand years ago since many of them were under brutal colonial rule as recently as 50 years ago where the occupiers tried their best and often succeeded in taking people's culture and language away. So I've met people from Algeria and Tunisia who can't speak Arabic properly because the colonialists forced them to study their languages in schools (French). Equivalent to our residential schools but much worse.

5. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined with the unconditional and biased support of Israel only further adds to the mix. Now the war mongers are clamouring for Iran too (just to be clear many Muslim governments support action against Iran but the common people are very much against it).

6. If you grew up in Egypt or Tunisia or most other Arab countries, you first hand experienced the American support to the dictators. So it's not just a news item for them but rather a daily life occurrence.

I just want to point out one thing... "The Muslim World" The way we speak is a direct reflection of the way we think. It's our world... all of ours.. not the Muslim one. We need to start viewing ourselves as one NOT as items in boxes with labels.
The Muslim world is the entire world just as the christian world is.

I work with a human rights organization and I see it all the time. I hear the veiled discrimination all the time.. I see the segregation all the time. And its not done by mean or bad people.... it's just the environment we operate in and viewpoints we grew up with that we have not taken the time to question.

The middle east is an area of VERY strong religious beliefs. Be it Muslim or other.... That should be respected. We in the west don't have to agree but we can dam well respect.

These riots aren't really about the video as many people have pointed out. It's about the west's view of the specific area and our constant interference in it.

[Dusty Bear]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Where? I have not heard any Muslim leaders or clerics publicly condemn the killings. (as usual)

I'm wondering; have you done any searching for it yourself or are you making this assumption based on the news coverage you've seen?

Because the attacks have been denounced: http://digitaljournal.com/article/332887

[Chmilz]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

The middle east is an area of VERY strong religious beliefs. Be it Muslim or other.... That should be respected. We in the west don't have to agree but we can dam well respect.

Speak for yourself. I don't respect any religion or culture that stones people to death for leaving their house without the appropriate gender standing next to them, showing their face in public, or for wanting any other basic human rights.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Speak for yourself. I don't respect any religion or culture that stones people to death for leaving their house without the appropriate gender standing next to them, showing their face in public, or for wanting any other basic human rights.

Chilmz, ever been to a Muslim majority country? Even the most conservative of them like Saudi Arabia don't stone anyone for showing their face. I just came back from Dubai and Turkey and you'd be surprised at the multiculturalism and diversity you'd find.

It's a long ways off but if you ever get a chance, I would recommend a visit.

[Vincent]

How about stoning girls to death for having the audacity to be victims of rape? Are we supposed to respect that?

[Chmilz]

Originally Posted by faraz

Chilmz, ever been to a Muslim majority country? Even the most conservative of them like Saudi Arabia don't stone anyone for showing their face. I just came back from Dubai and Turkey and you'd be surprised at the multiculturalism and diversity you'd find.

It's a long ways off but if you ever get a chance, I would recommend a visit.

Good job, you named the two places where that doesn't happen.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Good job, you named the two places where that doesn't happen.

My wife and I have been to numerous other Muslim countries (Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia etc.) and we never experienced what you referring to. Yes, there are crazy people who do crazy things but we've got enough of our crazies (Magnotta, etc.) to know they don't represent the entire population.

Yes, countries such as Saudi Arabia have some laws we'd object to but nothing as extreme as stoning someone for showing their face.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Speak for yourself. I don't respect any religion or culture that stones people to death for leaving their house without the appropriate gender standing next to them, showing their face in public, or for wanting any other basic human rights.

Fine , but if you don't respect others don't expect it in return... and that's exactly what is happening.

[faraz]

As a small example of how ignorance can exist on all sides of the coin, people who have never visited North America or Europe tell me our culture is all about sex and alcohol. This kind of thinking is no different than saying all of their culture is about stoning women, etc.

[stinger11]

You mean those black walking tents aren't because it's cold here?

[Chmilz]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Fine , but if you don't respect others don't expect it in return... and that's exactly what is happening.

Difference being, I don't kill those I don't respect. I just ignore them.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by stinger11

You mean those black walking tents aren't because it's cold here?

Who are we decide what the other should or shouldn't wear? Live and let live.

[Komrade]

Originally Posted by Dupa

and you'd be protesting against thos Christians....where is your outrage against this......we all know you are a Christian hater.

What??? How did you get that?

That post is near slander.

[faraz]

On a lighter note (and we all know this thread can use one), see the latest trending hashtag on twitter: #muslimrage

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/17/news..._muslim_humor/

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by stinger11

You mean those black walking tents aren't because it's cold here?

We are free to wear whatever we want in this country... Lets not forget that.

Some could debate that the "black tents" are as equally morally repugnant as some of the T shirts people wear to the bars that talk about Sex,how big your member is, or how much you like tits.

We don't have to like each other, but we do have the right to live how we want to live as long as it does not infringe on others rights. Someone wearing a Hijab ( the real name for a "black tent" ) does not infringe upon my rights not is every person FORCED to wear them.. most honestly choose to. I am sorry if this makes you feel uncomfortable.

[Chmilz]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

We are free to wear whatever we want in this country... Lets not forget that.

Wear the same thing, but in white, and go for a stroll. I dare you. Maybe adorn a Nazi uniform and go spend a day volunteering at the local synagogue. Post pictures.

[edmonton daily photo]

again i post ^

We don't have to like each other, but we do have the right to live how we want to live as long as it does not infringe on others rights. Someone wearing a Hijab ( the real name for a "black tent" ) does not infringe upon my rights not is every person FORCED to wear them.. most honestly choose to. I am sorry if this makes you feel uncomfortable.

Promoting hate is a right infringement. You are not making fair comparisons. Further to that are linking the Muslim faith to Nazi Germany and the KKK... I think you are being rather ignorant and are further just proving the point about how you personally view these fellow Canadians.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

again i post ^

We don't have to like each other, but we do have the right to live how we want to live as long as it does not infringe on others rights. Someone wearing a Hijab ( the real name for a "black tent" ) does not infringe upon my rights not is every person FORCED to wear them.. most honestly choose to.

I believe he's referring to a Niqab, not a Hijab. A Hijab just covers the head and neck. Niqabs cover everything but the eyes and are usually black.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Wear the same thing, but in white, and go for a stroll. I dare you. Maybe adorn a Nazi uniform and go spend a day volunteering at the local synagogue. Post pictures.

and so the existence of godwin's law get's proven once again - and it only took 88 posts...

and for additional irony you managed to add a synagogue to your comparison on the first day of rosh hashanah.

to equate what wearing a niqab implies about the wearer (assuming the personal choice is that of the wearer and not imposed on the wearer) to what wearing a kkk or nazi uniform implies about its wearer probably means you fail to understand the difference, not that there isn't one.

[Chmilz]

^But we're free to wear what we want. That's what he said.

Also, wrong on the Godwin's law. Godwin's law states that a comparison to Nazi's or Hitler will eventually happen. There was no comparison. Nazi garb was listed along with other generally accepted offending clothing choices, not to suggest anyone was is a Nazi.

[faraz]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

Wear the same thing, but in white, and go for a stroll. I dare you. Maybe adorn a Nazi uniform and go spend a day volunteering at the local synagogue. Post pictures.

Chilmz, if you are advocating for this video, then you should also defend the right of someone to wear the KKK or Nazi outfit. Why should it matter if some groups will be offended?

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Chmilz

^But we're free to wear what we want. That's what he said.

Also, wrong on the Godwin's law. Godwin's law states that a comparison to Nazi's or Hitler will eventually happen. There was no comparison. Nazi garb was listed along with other generally accepted offending clothing choices, not to suggest anyone was is a Nazi.

if you want to quibble the point, godwin's law states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving nazis or hitler approaches 1". the key word is "involving", not "to", and it would certainly apply to dress in the manner you put forward.

it's also interesting to remember that godwin's concern was not to eliminate references or discussions about nazis or hitler but to eliminate comparisons such as the one you made as they ultimately - whether intentional or not -would trivialize the holocaust. that was why it used to be tradition in many internet newsgroups and forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned nazis or hitler in that fasion automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

for those that do not know him, mike godwin has had a long and well respected career in internet law.

lastly, i would still disagree with your contention that a niqab belongs in the same category as "generally accepted offending clothing choices" such as kkk or nazi uniforms regardless of how you want to sugarcoat the comparision. it's that very comparison - in reverse - of a nazi uniform with a niqab that exemplifies the trivialization that godwin feared as well as escalating the perception of a niqab to somewhere it does not belong.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile

I believe he's referring to a Niqab, not a Hijab. A Hijab just covers the head and neck. Niqabs cover everything but the eyes and are usually black.

Thank you for the correction

[PrairieBoyinExile]

NEW YORK, N.Y.—As violent protests over an anti-Islamic film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad sweep over much of the Muslim world, a conservative blogger’s provocative ad equating Muslim radicals with savages is set to go up in New York City’s subway system.

Pamela Geller, who once headed a campaign against an Islamic centre near the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack site won a court order to post the ad in 10 subway stations next Monday. The ad reads, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...k-city-subways


This is exactly what I was talking about. Certain groups are using these protests to try to paint Israel as an innocent victim, which obviously couldn't be further from the truth.

[edmonton daily photo]

There was a great segment on as it happens talking about free speach, the riots, what is happening in france etc etc etc....

We have to remember that the irate people who are protesting are totally ignorant as to what our life is like here. How we value multicuturalism etc

BUT it also touched on who some Islamic groups are muzzed, denied their right to peaceful demonstration. In France some groups want to peaceably demonstrate against the publishing fo the cartoons that sparked this last time... they were denied while french groups were allowed to protest.

[PrairieBoyinExile]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

There was a great segment on as it happens talking about free speach, the riots, what is happening in france etc etc etc....

We have to remember that the irate people who are protesting are totally ignorant as to what our life is like here. How we value multicuturalism etc

BUT it also touched on who some Islamic groups are muzzed, denied their right to peaceful demonstration. In France some groups want to peaceably demonstrate against the publishing fo the cartoons that sparked this last time... they were denied while french groups were allowed to protest.

You make a fair point. These aren't pluralistic societies that promote tolerance of differing viewpoints. But should that necessarily excuse the violence? I'm just saying they're working against their own interests because they make themselves look like "savages" (using the words of the unfortunate campaign referenced above) and Israel look like the good guys.

[Vincent]

France is a very different country than Canada or the United States. They are being extremely careful with the Muslims there because they know all about the violence that can easily erupt. Denying peaceful demonstrations against the cartoons is probably a wise decision.

[edmonton daily photo]

Originally Posted by PrairieBoyinExile

You make a fair point. These aren't pluralistic societies that promote tolerance of differing viewpoints. But should that necessarily excuse the violence? I'm just saying they're working against their own interests because they make themselves look like "savages" (using the words of the unfortunate campaign referenced above) and Israel look like the good guys.

Although I would not use the term savage... A tribal villager in Pakistan/ Afghanistan can hardly expect to be worldly... There is so much going on here... more than we can possibly hope to truly understand.