# Islamaphobia



## A4NoOb (Jul 4, 2008)

As some of you more politically-active know, this word (for the syndicate of Canadian Human Rights) describes the _hatred and bigotry_ of people aimed toward the degradation of Islamic camaraderie. Recently, this is shown through the discussions of Islam in Canada who viciously attack Mark Steyn for an article in MacLeans magazine. More precisely, the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress has sued MacLeans magazine on grounds of hate speech and inciting discrimination of the Islamic populous.

Now let me refrain from claiming Canada’s serious denigration of civil rights regarding freedom of speech, but question the premise of this "hate speech". No quote from the article has been singled out in direct relationship with inciting readers to hate the common Islam. No blurp, no opinion and no distortion of facts have been even interpreted as "hate speech". What these prosecutors are describing as "hate speech" are the unequivocal facts presented throughout the article that lead to an irrevocable conclusion. Statistics, percentages, quotes from imams themselves have been taken into this article and it's jurisdiction to put together a relatively accurate statement that Islam is numerically taking over. 

No, these people are claiming "hate speech" because MacLeans has refused to produce an editorial in response. Let's put this into perspective, a private media is told that it is obligatory to provide an article from an alternative source. What free speech is there when you are DEMANDED to produce an editorial that isn't under your discretion? Instead of going to many other willing free press such as Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, Calgary Star, National Post or Ottawa Citizen (which they scrupulously did do), they decided to single out MacLeans and force them to post what they wanted. Yes folks, this is Canada for you.

These "moderate, educated scholars in Islam" show their true faces when they directly avoid debates. In the entire time Mark Steyn has been attacked for his article being called a radical, neocon, Islamaphobic, racist, fascist or nazi, (which in themselves are synonymous to hate speech) he has not once declined a free open debate with these aggressors. In a recent TVO debut regarding this fiasco, it became apparent that the option for a debate was declined by these very “prosecutors” (3 students who filed the lawsuit). How peculiar and ironic considering these same people "support" freedom of speech.

In conclusion you may speculate "why is the title 'Islamaphobia'?". It is a hoax, one giant hoax used by these politically correct activists to silence freedom of speech and censor factual evidence. Discrimination (and incitement of it) has become a means to condone factual information in order to placate a certain growing minority. Ultimately it shows that people prefer to be happy and ignorant than knowledgeable. Who cares about the facts, it's discrimination because it's the inconvenient truth!


----------



## The Worst (Jul 4, 2008)

long post is loooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggg


----------



## kikuchiyo (Jul 4, 2008)

And poorly thought out to boot.


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 4, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> And poorly thought out to boot.



Well I was afraid that this was going to be trolled, but what's "poorly thought out" about it. I'm at least supporting it with facts.


----------



## Lazycus (Jul 4, 2008)

Read kikuchiyo's sig and then consider the merit of his "poorly thought out" comment.


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 4, 2008)

So I was using derogatory slang? Where? I'm not even stereotyping.


----------



## kikuchiyo (Jul 4, 2008)

I usually try not to feed the trolls, but...

I was almost with you until the last few paragraphs.  If you don't think Muslims are being discriminated and harassed since 2001, you're obviously not Muslim.  

As for "so-called moderate Muslims," you've obviously got an agenda to push.  Moderate Muslims are busy being moderate.  Lives, families, jobs.  You know, the normal stuff.

As for my signature, it's far more valid than your original post.


----------



## gizmo_gal (Jul 4, 2008)

I'm sorry but what sort of response exactly where you hoping for with this topic?


----------



## Hitto (Jul 4, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> I usually try not to feed the trolls, but...
> 
> I was almost with you until the last few paragraphs.  If you don't think Muslims are being discriminated and harassed since 2001, you're obviously not Muslim.
> 
> As for "so-called moderate Muslims," you've obviously got an agenda to push.  Moderate Muslims are busy being moderate.  Lives, families, jobs.  You know, the normal stuff.


Now, far be it from me to encourage flamewars or hating your neighbor, but we CANNOT keep playing "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, YOU HORRIBLE RACIST" when they actually have a point and facts to back it up.
Here in France, the situation is - kinda - under control. We *did* need a law to refrain muslim girls from wearing a scarf in public school and at the same time, that law forbade the jews from wearing kippas, sikhs from wearing turbans, christians from wearing crosses even as medallions, it was a law against proselytism in general. Then, the whole mahomet caricatures didn't cause as much uproar as in denmark or the rest of the world. I *will* admit that I cringe whenever I see a scarfed young girl in the street. As much as when I see one kid and his rabbi father, all dressed in black, during a hot summer day. Fucking superstitions...
I'm against religion as a whole, but I don't think ANYBODY wants to bother the awesome and peaceful Baye Fall Muslims from Senegal, or the gentle, moderate muslims from Indonesia. BUT, when you go to their country, you respect THEIR rules... I have NEVER, EVER seen a miniskirt in Iran or in Gaza. Most other "muslim" countries I visited are much more laid back and westernized, and more than they'd like to admit. (But don't kiss your girlfriend in public!) Is it racist to expect the same from OUR guests? What is racist about hating fundamentalists? What is racist about hating those assholes who cover up their women in burqas and beat them up "because it's allowed and recommended in the coran"?

Now, to make everybody agree on at least SOMEthing : mark steyn is a troll. It's his JOB. He'll say outright disgusting shit (just wiki him) just to make people talk about him and sell some books. But islamic fundies also have their agendas to push. Which they DO.


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (Jul 4, 2008)

Yawn, and yet again the word racist is applied when it has nothing to do with race, or last time I checked Islam was a religion.

And while I would like to discuss this particular topic in depth, I don't have so much time in my day, to write a post that will only get deleted later.

I'll settle for just saying I have nothing nice to say about this "religion of peace".

I also have nothing nice to say about any spoiled brat special interest group that feels there every facet of their belief is more special than anyone else's.

If they don't want to be ordinary Canadians, let them get out of my country.

I hear the USA is real happy to tolerate their every whim.


----------



## Westside (Jul 4, 2008)

Panzer Tacticer said:
			
		

> Yawn, and yet again the word racist is applied when it has nothing to do with race, or last time I checked Islam was a religion.
> 
> And while I would like to discuss this particular topic in depth, I don't have so much time in my day, to write a post that will only get deleted later.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you never have been discriminated as a Muslim before.  I have modern views on this religion, I don NOT believe in the holy war and such.  I am rather passive actually.  However, even then, I have been called a "sand n****" before, just because I have an Islamic name, not because of how I look even.  I have been brought up in this religion, and it has heavily influenced my culture.  It is no longer just a religion.  Back in the Canadian army, soldiers would purposely wear a towel around their head around me and speak pseudo-arabic just to piss me off.  My Christian military instructors forced me to say I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ, because I was the only Muslim there.  Discrimination or not?  You decide.


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 4, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> I usually try not to feed the trolls, but...
> 
> I was almost with you until the last few paragraphs.  If you don't think Muslims are being discriminated and harassed since 2001, you're obviously not Muslim.
> 
> ...



Your signature is irrelevant if that's what you mean. If I want to name call people then that's fine, but it sounds as though you are justifying people *sent to jail* for making their own opinion.


----------



## Trolly (Jul 4, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> Every time you say "Jap" I get to say "Stupid White Bigoted Cracker." As in, "Man I can't read this Jap release!" "Then wait for the Stupid White Bigoted Cracker release in a month, rere."



You may have some deep reason for this, such as the term 'Jap' having a bad history, but as far as I can see it's just a shortening of 'Japanese'. Which part of that is meant to be offensive? If someone called me a Brit, hell I wouldn't care at all. Sorry if I'm getting under your skin, but how is that offensive?

And unfortunately my concentration waned before I finished the first paragraph. All this fighting between countries and all this racism is so pointless, I just don't bother reading about it any more to be truthful. If someone started insulting white people I'd leave them to it tbh, why should I be bothered? It's not as if it's a very personal insult (though I guess you could argue some people take their culture and race personally - not something I particularly understand).


----------



## kikuchiyo (Jul 5, 2008)

Jap is offensive - there is history behind it - the proper shortening of Japan or Japanese should be JPN.  Western people don't understand how minorities are dehumanized, especially during a war.

As for Muslims, I never said I want anyone to go to jail - bigoted idiots like Mark Steyn should be allowed to speak their mind.  Like I said, I was WITH you until the last few paragraphs of your original post.  The first part said that Macleans shouldn't be singled out, which I fundamentally agree with.

Your last two paragraphs are obviously anti-Muslim, for no good reason, as is your follow up post.  When did I say I want anyone to go to jail?

Regarding Panzer Tatics's post, if you find nothing redeemable about Islam, you don't know much about Islam.  That's all.  But in America, for better or worse, we have freedom of speech - not bowing to every whim like you say.  This would be a non-case in the U.S.  For better or worse, Canada has hate speech laws - as a society Canada made that decision.  Either change the law or move somewhere else, because you don't like the way Canadian society is structured.


----------



## Prophet (Jul 5, 2008)

I agree Mark Steyn should not be _legally_ silenced, but I wouldn't shed a tear if he and his kind fell ill. To legally silence him would be an action constructed and implicated simply to placate Islamic opponents of his views. This does not beget change, its just an example of a bureaucracy twisting in on itself to accommodate those that would possibly set said bureaucracy a-flame. I love when people like Mark Steyn wave their bigotry in the town square. It only serves to motivate the minority (or oppressed majority) to galvanize. Nothing does a better job of converting the "moderate" into the dually faithful, as does the banter of hate mongers. And yes Steyn is a hate monger, read and watch:

http://vladglebov.com/2008/03/08/mark-stey...uralism-part-i/

He might very well be right, the world might be ripe for a Islam-ification in the coming years. The problem is that he uses terms like "It’s the end of the world as we’ve known it" and empowers division with “The question for today’s Europe is whether the primary identity of their fastest-growing demographic is Muslim or Belgian, Muslim or Dutch, Muslim or French.” He is in turn proposing (without ever out and out saying so) that we do something to stem the coming tide of Islam.

My question is simply this: Why? If Islam is to become the worlds new unified overlord then who are we to stop it? Who are we to even complain? How many years has the western world imposed it's will across the globe? Do we really think we are hated for our overwhelming kindness? No. Collectively we have been terrible shepherds (especially as of late) upon the world stage. And yes the Islamic agenda to follow may be just as despicable and just as epidemically hate inducing, but who are we to talk? If Islam's rein is as inevitable as Steyn touts, than he is not peddling a solution, but rather he is raising a banner and silently calling for blood shed.

I don't personally know how an overwhelming Islamic presence at the table will effect the lives of most people over the world. What I do know is this: I'm a black man in America, it can't get much worst for me and mine.

Edit: "Jap" has many negative connotations attached to it; most of which are rooted in post pearl-harbor propaganda designed to ready the American people for the nations entry into WWII. It was and should still be considered offensive.


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 5, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> http://vladglebov.com/2008/03/08/mark-stey...uralism-part-i/
> 
> He might very well be right, the world might be ripe for a Islam-ification in the coming years. The problem is that he uses terms like "It’s the end of the world as we’ve known it" and empowers division with “The question for today’s Europe is whether the primary identity of their fastest-growing demographic is Muslim or Belgian, Muslim or Dutch, Muslim or French.” He is in turn proposing (without ever out and out saying so) that we do something to stem the coming tide of Islam.
> 
> My question is simply this: Why? If Islam is to become the worlds new unified overlord then who are we to stop it? Who are we to even complain? How many years has the western world imposed it's will across the globe? Do we really think we are hated for our overwhelming kindness? No. Collectively we have been terrible shepherds (especially as of late) upon the world stage. And yes the Islamic agenda to follow may be just as despicable and just as epidemically hate inducing, but who are we to talk? If Islam's rein is as inevitable as Steyn touts, than he is not peddling a solution, but rather he is raising a banner and silently calling for blood shed.



I sincerely hope this opinion is not taken the wrong way as I will not generalize but substantiate with facts. There is enough violent muslims in the world that oppress people for their types of views. Whether you are gay, anti-muslim, or even just a citizen you are a target of extremism. When a teacher calls a teddy bear Mohammad, people riot outside her house screaming death threats. When Pope Benedict quotes 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, churches are burned and nuns are killed. When a danish cartoon makes a joke, Lebanon is in flames. And what I believe is scarier is that countries like Jordan or Lebanon have a significant portion of people that support extremism http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248

Concordantly if it's not extremism you're afraid of then it's "muslim scholars" seeming to find any type of Islamaphobic speech and prosecuting you for it. Bridgett Bardot fined for 24 thousand dollars for criticizing the slaughter of animals in an Eid Sacrifice. Finnish Blogger was sentenced to *two years in jail* for his "incitement". Digressing you may blame this on EU Constitutions but these prosecutors are just as much to blame.  
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2008/0...rdot-convicted/
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_s...sh-blogger.html

These are just some of the facts Mark Steyn takes into account when making his opinion. When he was attacked during the TVO debut, I found him NOT to be the biggest bigot out there. If anything he was more tolerant than the Islamic "scholars" who interrupted him and threw snide comments to him under their breath.


----------



## Prophet (Jul 5, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> There is enough violent muslims in the world that oppress people for their types of views.



How can we even speak of oppression? Last time I checked America was the master of it. You see the only difference between our tactics and their's is this: The Muslim extremist will show you the knife before he brings it to your throat. We on the other hand are more overt in our delivery of the blade. Ask yourself this, which has claimed more lives; The fires set by Islamic extremists or the trade embargoes we use to choke-out the nations that don't fall into line with our views.


----------



## Hitto (Jul 5, 2008)

Oh, come on, the great american satan is an old, tired and overused troll. 
Shut the fuck up, really. Without this "horribly opressive capitalist regime", you wouldn't even be talking shit on the internet.
The reality of it is that most muslim immigrants in decent, liberal democracies fled their SHITTY countries FOR A GODDAMN REASON. And most of the time, the young ones who don't know whether they are french/american/whatever or Algerian/turkish/pick a shitty dictatorship that pretends it's a western liberal democracy are the most fundamentalistic of all. The parents? They're desolate to see the young generation act so spoiled and stupid.

Example? The other day, I see a big mama africa, "normally-veiled", pushing her baby in its cart, and her fully-burqua-veiled-like-the-goddamn-fist-of-the-north-star teenage daughter, and what does the little CUNT say?

"I want my man to come from the bled!" (that would mean maghreb. Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya... Yeah, great fucking countries with a record of defending human rights and spreading wealth all around for the people!)

There were SO MANY things WRONG with this sentence! first, "I", if you're a strictly religious woman, DOES NOT EXIST! Neither does "Want"! You're a fucking BITCH and that's all you will ever be, deal with it or become an apostate! "My man" meant "my husband", and "to come from the bled" meant SHE NEVER WENT THERE! Else she would realize how good she had it here in europe!

And of course, the big mama said "yeah, right... do that... you'll see..." as she chuckled.

Thing is, as long as coca-cola, television, free speech and rock'n'roll exist, NOTHING can beat capitalism. Get this through your thick, "oh I'm such a rebel, I hate the USA!!!" skulls.

Fucking rebellious kids. It won't score you chicks, I'm telling you right now.

Disclaimer : I went to most of what I call "shitty countries", so I can safely say that they are. Don't take anything for granted. Tap water? HAHA! Phones? HAHA! Toilets? HAHA! Food that isn't rice? MWAHAHA! (on a positive note, they are retrogamers to the max.... Lots of super nintendos in senegal, saudi arabia, and libya as far as I saw them.)


----------



## Lazycus (Jul 5, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> Jap is offensive - there is history behind it - the proper shortening of Japan or Japanese should be JPN.  Western people don't understand how minorities are dehumanized, especially during a war.



There is nothing offensive about using "JAP" as an abbreviation for a game release.  For you to equate it to racist hate speech (as you do in your signature) is just silly and shows you really have issues.

Do you have any understanding of world history at all?  Do you understand the origins of WWII at all?  If "Western people" didn't understand how minorities were dehumanized they sure were given the extreme lessons by the Japanese and Germans in WWII.  These blanket statements you make are just laughable.  Why do you have such problems with "Western people" and "white(s)"?


----------



## Prophet (Jul 5, 2008)

Hitto said:
			
		

> Shut the fuck up, really. Without this "horribly opressive capitalist regime", you wouldn't even be talking shit on the internet.



You're logic is so skewed that I almost feel like letting it sit there untouched, certain that anyone who read it would recognize it as ethnocentrism at it's worst. Western civilization has raped the globe. It is then no surprise that it has became the advanced civilization that it is. Our opulent comfort comes at the expense of all those that have been grinded upon, as we moved to secure said opulent comfort. Your logic is flawed. You can't assume that the success of America is independent of the state that much of the world is left in. You can not argue that "Without capitalism" we'd all be in the dark. You are arguing backwards. Is it not possible that without the advent capitalism that the world as a whole would be equally or even more advanced then we are now? 

Let me simplify. There are two small settlements: one upstream, one down stream. One day the upstream dwellers decide to build a dam, this will allow them to cultivate a greater span of their own land hence leading to civilization advancement. Now all of a sudden the down stream dwellers start moving into the Upstream settlement. They come openly angered, mad that their land is in shambles; but rather than face death by drought they come to join the upstream settlement. Even as the down-streamers settle into their new lives in the now thriving land of the up-streamers, it is quite apparent that they remain bitter. 

This is my question: Would the upstream natives, the builders of the dam that killed their neighbors land -- casting them into drought to raise their own comfort... These upstream natives, would they be right to skip justification of their actions and simply tell those that migrate from downstream, "Shut the fuck up, really. Without this dam you'd still be down stream etching out a living -- There's no water down there." 

This would of course make no sense, the up-streamers are the architects of the suffering wrought upon downstream inhabitants. They can not cite said suffering, as the reason for the disenfranchised to be thankful or beholding to them. So, yes maybe if it wasn't for the "horribly oppressive capitalist regime" I wouldn't have Internet access, I'd still be in Africa. Maybe I'd even go to bed a little bit less full, but what I can assure you of is this: The Africa that would exist without the cold grasp on the western world, would be an Africa foreign to us all. The western world is the architect of the suffering wrought upon much of the world. You can not cite said suffering, as the reason for the disenfranchised to be thankful or beholding to your views.

I would touch on the disgusting parts of your post, but my point is made and your lack of care only serves to further punctuate my own argument.


----------



## Lazycus (Jul 5, 2008)

Yes Prophet, we know you hate the U.S.A./Western civilization/capitalism but isn't it a bit much to blame it for everything wrong in the world?

I do enjoy your 'dam the river' example.  It reminds me of the Tigris.  I'm not sure it's a good example of the western world being the architect of global suffering though.

Remember the good ole U.S. of A. has only been around 232 years.

Do you think you can make a change in the U.S.A. or will you be leaving for Africa or some other location soon?


----------



## Prophet (Jul 6, 2008)

Hate the U.S.A? I am the U.S.A. My people built her, my people have shed blood for her in countless wars. My uncles, my grandfather, my people; they are America. So no I don't hate her. I hate capitalism and oppression. I hate corruption, I hate the bureaucracy but I don't hate my country. At times I despise what she has become, but the intentions that she was founded under were pure.

I don't place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. , colonization is the true culprit and that far out dates the U.S. What I feel does make the modern western world less forgivable for it's actions is the pretense that is used to veil intention and history. I would prefer we were more up front about our goals, however brutal or barbaric. Morality and capitalism can not sit at the table together, it's that simple. The state of the world is a burden that all nations share some blame in. But if the capitalist agenda continues to reign, then the world will never change. People will die not because there isn't enough food, but because the "bottom-line" is worth more than their lives.

As far as leaving, I'll never stay away from long. The change must come from within. The only question is this: Can anything be salvaged or does the whole nation have to be reduced to ash so that it may rise anew? Either way, something will eventually give way...


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 6, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> I hate corruption, I hate the bureaucracy but I don't hate my country. At times I despise what she has become, but the intentions that she was founded under were pure.
> 
> By the sounds of this you would hate communism and ANY totalitarian society than democracy. As the famous saying goes, democracy is a horrible government until you look at the rest. But I would like to see examples where you back up your overly exerted philosophical analysis of the Western society.
> 
> ProphetHow can we even speak of oppression? Last time I checked America was the master of it. You see the only difference between our tactics and their's is this: The Muslim extremist will show you the knife before he brings it to your throat. We on the other hand are more overt in our delivery of the blade. Ask yourself this, which has claimed more lives; The fires set by Islamic extremists or the trade embargoes we use to choke-out the nations that don't fall into line with our views.



...
Muslim extremists show people their knife before they kill them? What kind of outrageous statement is that? Terrorists pose as innocent civilians all the time and blow themselves up on a bus or a building or anywhere. In what way would you find that "honorable" enough to show their knife? How are they "showing their knife" when they pose deliberately as 'innocent interviewers' and blow up Ahmed Massoud? How do you find ANYTHING honest in terrorist actions? Please at least be a little expository in your assertions.


----------



## Hitto (Jul 6, 2008)

Prohpet, I don't know how old you are, but you need to travel...

Okay, let's say we all live 2000 years ago. You would probably say how evil Rome is and how its military expansion rapes the world (it did). But their achievements far outweigh the bad, with notable influences that help us even today; And *my* logic is flawed? You DO know what computers and the internet were originally built for, right? The first to build bombs, and the second to have a communication system that would survive those bombs! Yeah, it's rotten, but fifty years later we have access to nuclear power and the internet in the public domain. You're looking to put blame on something? Blame the times we live in.

Sigh... I dunno, maybe what I'm trying to say is that you're a spoiled brat. Let's leave it at that.

A4NoOb : I forgot to tell you something, don't rely too much on our media to paint a fair picture. Before I went to Africa, all I'd seen of it were either animal documentaries, and not a single news item that didn't contain starving kids or violent uprisings. And you know... Yeah, shit happens there, but imagine if all you saw about your own country on the news, every day was about homeless people, jesus camps, morbidly obese people participating in hot dog eating contests, and rednecks? And what if it's the same in other countries? Guess what, it is! Here in France, I can tell you the media definitely loves to snob America. I think the last time I'd heard of america that wasn't totally depressing was the coverage of burning man. So I don't even wanna start on dictator-owned media. Any way, what I'm trying to say is don't panic and paint a picture too black.


----------



## kikuchiyo (Jul 6, 2008)

To wit:
A4NoOb and Lazycus
Islam is evil, Muslims are evil.  There is nothing good about Islam.

I think I, westside, and test84 are proof enough to the contrary.  If you don't think so, you need to go see the world.  I've lived in the U.S., Japan, and Bangladesh - people are just people.  Even Muslims.


----------



## mastermanna123 (Jul 6, 2008)

*Walks into topic...*
*Angry ppl are staring at me >_> ...


----------



## mastermanna123 (Jul 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Prophet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*facepalmheaddesk*
its a figure of speech
i think he means that muslims dont react with the violence as quick. They show warning and caution before action, opposed to the US just jumping in. but in a way both sides are wrong in their own way.


----------



## Eternal Myst (Jul 6, 2008)

*???? ???? ?? ??????*


----------



## Westside (Jul 6, 2008)

Eternal Myst said:
			
		

> ???? ???? ?? ??????


?????? ?? 





I'm sure you can write that in English...


----------



## Eternal Myst (Jul 6, 2008)

Westside said:
			
		

> Eternal Myst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't take me seriously. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 6, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> To wit:
> A4NoOb and Lazycus
> Islam is evil, Muslims are evil.  There is nothing good about Islam.
> 
> ...


Of course it's a figure of speech, I never took it literally o.O
What is sounds like though is that terrorists are open about their aims and reveal their actions to their "victims" both of which are not true at all.


----------



## Lazycus (Jul 6, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> To wit:
> A4NoOb and Lazycus
> Islam is evil, Muslims are evil.  There is nothing good about Islam.
> 
> I think I, westside, and test84 are proof enough to the contrary.  If you don't think so, you need to go see the world.  I've lived in the U.S., Japan, and Bangladesh - people are just people.  Even Muslims.



Where did I say anything about Islam or Muslims being all evil?  Just because you're a racist with a signature that shows you as such don't try to include me as a hateful person.  I think that's what you're trying to do with the "To wit:" but I'm not sure you've used it correctly.

People are not just people.  Every religion has a percentage of extremists who will gladly kill you and justify it in the name of their god.  Some religions have a higher percentage than others.  Most religions are divided into factions who will gladly kill over their differences in their views of 'their religion' and 'their god'.

I think most people in the world are good people no matter what their religion/race/origin/etc.  Every group has their share of idiots.  Unfortunately many of those idiots rise to power and manipulate the good people to do evil things in the name of the 'group'.  Those idiots deserve to be identified as such and have their hateful actions exposed and prevented and be punished for them.  I think that was the intention of the original poster to say that no group should be immune to having their hateful actions pointed out no matter if they are a minority or majority group.  Hate is hate.  Take a good luck at your signature and evaluate whether it is an objection to hate or just promoting more.


----------



## Prophet (Jul 6, 2008)

mastermanna123 said:
			
		

> A4NoOb said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice to see this post is at least written in a _less_ degrading format.

So the end justifies the means? Only through war and conquest are we capable of advancing our society? Okay, well if a Muslim extremist comes to your door and goes “BOOM”; please rejoice. Be happy in the milliseconds before it all goes black. Perhaps your death is serving some future greater good.

Whether the “achievements far outweigh the bad” is relative. Your statement is the type of thing that only comes from the mouths of people who's society sits atop the fruits of conflict and have subsequently forgotten the cold sting of burdened shoulders. And maybe that's why I don't feel so scared about the prospect of Islam-ification. Maybe the world is ripe for change, a passing of the baton may be in order. Surely this prospect doesn't scare you, after all it's just history repeating itself, the same type of history you found it “smart” to cite. Nations rise and fall, the boot of one people upon the necks of another. Are you prepared to come out at the bottom? Or does your logic hide a caveat; Do the  “achievements far outweigh the bad” only when you and yours can claim victory?

I would argue that I'm not a “spoiled brat” but to do so would require me to speak of my humanitarian actions and in my eyes that would diminish the reason that I do said actions. So rather than drag something that is of pure intention down into the muck I'll simply allow for your criticism. To address your question of age: I'm 21.

Lastly, I'd like to apologize to everyone. In having conversations like this, it is hard not to use generalizing terms simply because they are convenient. I in no way mean to draw blanketed conclusions of Westerners, Muslims or any peoples. The inability to separate the will of the people from the will of the loudest people, is perhaps the greatest tragedy of the global community.


----------



## WelshLadGriff (Jul 6, 2008)

I have no quarrel with any of this topic, but i'm posting nonetheless. People have opinions about the way they think the world should be lived. I'm not too bothered about any of this, but to be honest, I hate terrorists.

Why? I think the answers in front of you. All we get out of them is shit because they like nothing better than screaming 'Allah' and before you know it there's half of your colleauges dead. Examples of this? 9/11. Oh, remember the bus in the UK 2 years ago? Yeah.

End statement? Fuck Terrorist and their shit-colord turbans.

This is my opinion. Go on. Feel free to call me racist because they are the only race of scum that i cant stand. All other races are cool. African-American. Japanese. You should be proud that your a part of your race.


----------



## Eternal Myst (Jul 6, 2008)

WelshLadGriff said:
			
		

> I have no quarrel with any of this topic, but i'm posting nonetheless. People have opinions about the way they think the world should be lived. I'm not too bothered about any of this, but to be honest, I hate terrorists.
> 
> Why? I think the answers in front of you. All we get out of them is shit because they like nothing better than screaming 'Allah' and before you know it there's half of your colleauges dead. Examples of this? 9/11. Oh, remember the bus in the UK 2 years ago? Yeah.
> 
> ...


Terrorists are a race.

Why I never knew that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




???? ????


----------



## Extreme Coder (Jul 6, 2008)

kikuchiyo said:
			
		

> To wit:
> A4NoOb and Lazycus
> Islam is evil, Muslims are evil.  There is nothing good about Islam.
> 
> I think I, westside, and test84 are proof enough to the contrary.  If you don't think so, you need to go see the world.  I've lived in the U.S., Japan, and Bangladesh - people are just people.  Even Muslims.


*Ahem* Muslim here too, you know..


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 6, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> Yes I mean that purely figuratively. The Muslim extremist sets a fire because a cartoonist depicted Muhammad (pbuh). Thats clear cut reasoning, they are showing you the knife. I'm not speaking on the morality of the action, I'm simply saying they use less of a guise. I'm also not arguing that Islam is some how more "good" or purer than western world, I am simply saying that our own immorality is so great that we are in no position to point fingers. We are far from worthy enough to be casting any stones; thats my point and thats it.  We are not humanitarians, we are serving no greater good. We ruled the world, if it's their turn now then we should just move aside. Otherwise American vanity and it's sense of entitlement are going to be the death of us.
> 
> So please explain me the "clear cut reasoning" when they blow up Ahmed Massoud? When they blow up innocent civilians? When they target the Twin Towers on 9/11? Actually, in essence I agree with you, terrorist intentions are rather obvious. Terrorists live to invoke terror and fear among the public. All to gain more and more power.
> 
> ...



Very nice, elegant words yet I do not see what facts and evidence you use to substantiate such assertions.


----------



## xcalibur (Jul 6, 2008)

WelshLadGriff said:
			
		

> I have no quarrel with any of this topic, but i'm posting nonetheless. People have opinions about the way they think the world should be lived. I'm not too bothered about any of this, but to be honest, I hate terrorists.
> 
> Why? I think the answers in front of you. All we get out of them is shit because they like nothing better than screaming 'Allah' and before you know it there's half of your colleauges dead. Examples of this? 9/11. Oh, remember the bus in the UK 2 years ago? Yeah.
> 
> ...



Not the extremist party. Its very clear in our religion that those who curse the prophet should be killed immidiatly.
And those pictures depicting the prophet were extremely offensive.


----------



## B-Blue (Jul 6, 2008)

I feel so sad reading this topic 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Very sad that people think this way, it's not fair at all.

BTW, Thank you Xcalibur, you wrote exactly what I wanted to say.


----------



## Eternal Myst (Jul 6, 2008)

B-Blue said:
			
		

> I feel so sad reading this topic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah I know seriously it reminds me of what happened to me last month.

With all these people thinking every Muslim is a terrorist.


----------



## Endogene (Jul 6, 2008)

looks like the topic is sort of going of course, actually i thought it would go this way when i saw the title and considering the somewhat recent events but i wont drift of to far the current sujet.

Terrorism is imposing one's ideas by fear, and therefor those who do this should suffer eternal damnation.
Now this opinion of mine is not limited to terrorism, i consider every act that forces an individual to adopt a certain ideas wrog, be it by lies that make us fear ,threats of repercution or by charming us by their status (FU tom cruise) as horrible as terrorism 

Now considering the islam i would say that it is no more different than chretianity, both have books with guidlines on how to act, morals. And in both those books there are some morals that now a days are far from accepteble, ethic, even going against what we consider the human rights.
Other than those morals most of those in these books are acceptable and some i would even say they are good

I've read the bible, i have yet to read the coran but i'm sure its no different.
Some part really shocked me, if a cristian would be to apply the bible litteraly, christians would be horrible same goes for muslims

I am as afraid of those extremist cristians as of those extremist muslims

I hate religions for imposing people how to have to act


----------



## Prophet (Jul 6, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Prophet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



History is proof enough. That and the fact that all attempts to construct a utopia, have fallen to pieces due to man's inability to leash his spirit. Our intent is never quite in line with our nature, we are still animal's in many ways. This animal instinct is the basis of corruption, our will to horde and conquer are innate tools that have helped us survive. To create a society where survival is promised, where the good of the many is equally the good of the few; these are concepts we could consider as forms of higher evolution. We simply aren't ready too assume that mantle yet. We are still too primitive, but I digress.

@Xcalibur: Great post. As far as the cartoonist comment I will have to defer to you, my Islamic knowledge is far from absolute. Would you elaborate however? The bible has a passage that advocates the killing of anyone who wears glasses (Leviticus, I believe),  this is of course an archaic and completely disregarded passage. I don't think anyone would argue it as a tenet of the religion, however there are equally archaic principles that are quite revered. Is the guidelines regarding the depiction of Muhammad (pbuh) pillars of the Islamic faith? Or are these also often disregarded within the faith. For the moderate, rank and file Muslim how offensive are the cartoons? It's hard for westerners like me to get purely unfiltered incite so forgive my ignorance.

And if anyone else wants to tackle that question, by all means feel free.


----------



## WelshLadGriff (Jul 6, 2008)

Xcalibur said:
			
		

> You are a fucking dick.
> First of all, your assumption that all terrorists are muslim couldn't be any further from the truth.
> You don't call the tons of missiles sent into palestine by Isreal to kill leaders of opposing extremist parties but instead killing and destroying the lives of many innocent palestinians terrorrism?
> I feel this is just as bad as 9/11 and happens even more frequently.
> ...



Frankly, I'm not really bothered about reasearching any of this shit at all. All i know is none of this shit wouldn't of happened if our troops got sent into Iraq (I think, It's been 5 years so i can't remember). I can't really care for anyone else at the moment.
But at the end of the day, I hate terrorists. I'm not saying i depict muslims as terrorists, because if i am, i'm sorry for causing you dispair =/

Oh yeah, And I can't see why our troops are there, because it's not even our fight. I say let the two 'factions' work things out, and if they end up nuking each other in the process, so be it.


----------



## mastermanna123 (Jul 6, 2008)

A terrorist is someone that causes terror and fear.

A robber once walked in to rob a store, and before he could attempt the holdup, he sees a cop pulling into the parking lot. Shear terror and fear have struck him. The cops in the car terrify the robber. 
Therefore, the cop is the terrorist in this scenario.

If I'm called a terrorist just because of my religion, race, or my diversity, in a situation where I had not commited any crime...I'll gladly take on the name of terrorist. 
But there will always be a straight fact, that me, and other reasonable people will know: I'm just another person. I'm innocent. I don't deserve to deal with people like that.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And one day, in the end, the racists, stereotypers, and people who think badly of others based on false accusations will all know the truth as well, but won't accept it because they have too much pride, but not enough to admit it. Silencing then for all eternity upon the subject.

I go to a highschool in the US. Don't ever for 1 second think its easy being a Bengali Muslim.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



I deal with shit from assholes every single day. Being blamed for shit I didn't do, rather just for my religion.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



It's not fair, and no one deserves to be treated like that.
But I hold my head high, and walk down those hallways. Why? Because I know I'm right, and everyone else will know one day as well.


----------



## feds4u (Jul 6, 2008)

These two cartoons best represent my feelings on the subject of Muslims and Islam.











Painful truth.

Its really funny to see a genocidal religion complain about being "persecuted."


----------



## mastermanna123 (Jul 6, 2008)

feds4u said:
			
		

> These two cartoons best represent my feelings on the subject of Muslims and Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sigh. 
I give up.
*facepalmheaddesk MAX POWER!*


----------



## Eternal Myst (Jul 7, 2008)

feds4u said:
			
		

> These two cartoons best represent my feelings on the subject of Muslims and Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Failure?

Seriously fuck you,and everyone like you.
This topic is really sad.


----------



## Prophet (Jul 7, 2008)

feds4u said:
			
		

> These two cartoons best represent my feelings on the subject of Muslims and Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good job, making the U.S. of A. look real good when you post stuff like that. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I wish someone would tattoo a disclaimer on these asshole's foreheads:

The bullshit that I may spew in no way represents the views and opinions of my nation.

When you start a arguement with, "These two cartoons best represent my feelings on..." you're almost certain to make your self look like a complete idiot.


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 7, 2008)

I would just like someone to explain to me where the notion of generalizing all muslims as terrorists came into the topic. Nobody has ever said this. I have never said this, but this is what you guys are all complaining about. It is a separate issue, and frankly irrelevant to this issue.


----------



## Goloki (Jul 7, 2008)

I think that all religions are equally bad. Just my two cents on the matter.


----------



## Sonicslasher (Jul 7, 2008)

I wouldn't touch this topic with a 30 yard stick!


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 7, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> They are at war. We look at it and can't quite grasp the brutal etiquette of war, but civilians die in wars. It's a fact that history is quick to point out. Some men die for affiliation others die for mere proximity. Thats clear cut to me. If we can get pass the "why" and "how could they" of the situation we would be able to see parallels between the war they wage on us and the ware we wage on them. When we get hung up on the morality and justification we are always going to get lost. Morality and justification are very ethnocentric concepts, a man would have to find himself entrenched in any given culture before he could accurately state what drives them to kill. So suffice to say, they are at war and they are going to kill those they consider to be their enemies. They might take a man in-front of a camera and decapitate him. Gruesome as it is, it still has a transparency that we lack in our own war time actions. We torture men until their hearts stop, until the shock to the system is simply to great for the body to carry on. Of course, we'd never televise it. It would never even be made public knowledge, if it weren't for the probing of out own vigilant press. We drop bombs, last time I check bombs kill indiscriminatory. You hear of the staggering numbers of our troops that die, but US forces won't even allow anyone in to count the dead Arabs.  To this day we only have estimates (This was still true the last time I checked into it).
> 
> As cliché as it is, one man's terrorist really is another man's freedom fighter.




When you say "civilians die in wars" you make it sound unintentional. Terrorists *INTENTIONALLY* target civilians. But I don't think you understand the premise of this disscussion, I mean the things you say are outrageous and have no substantiation whatsoever. You want to prove one of your rants then please show facts, not more philosophy.


----------



## Prophet (Jul 7, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Prophet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have already given my opinion on your original post and I gave a link and video of Styen to substantiated it. From there I launched a counter argument: If Islam is to become the worlds new unified overlord then who are we to stop it? Your response was, "they are bad and oppressive". My answer was, "they are no worst then we are". From there I've been fielding various questions and rebutting the flawed logic of the angry few. 

You are right, my post are heavy on philosophy. I don't feel very comfortable posting cartoons or links as "proof." Proof can be doctored and is often skewed, philosophy on the other hand is far less absolute. There is a logical progression, A to B, B to C. If something doesn't make sense than it allows for disagreement and discussion. Where as proof is the end of the conversation, I'll post an article explaining how terrorist don't mean to kill civilians then you'll post an article exclaiming how terrorist are plotting to kill civilians right now. It's a futile effort. You'll retreat to your propaganda and I'll grasp at the first liberal rag Google throws me. I'm not looking to have a virtual screaming match, are you?

Since you seem so eager, I'll bite. I don't believe "terrorist" intentionally kill "innocent" people. Now I would go on a long diatribe about how relative the term "innocent" is but you seem to be at your ropes end, so I'll spare you. My view can be summed up as this, two buildings at the heart of the countries financial center were targeted and destroyed. Any thing else was simply collateral damage. If killing the highest number of innocent people was the objective surely there were better places to strike. After all, no-one could have anticipated the towers would actually fall from the impact.

Wait. Pause. Let me give you a link: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/11/060911fa_fact3

"Osama bin Laden later boasted that he was the only one in the group’s upper hierarchy who had anticipated the magnitude of the wound that Al Qaeda *inflicted on America*, but he also admitted that he was *surprised by the towers’ collapse.*"

There is a difference between not caring how many civilians die and intentionally targeting civilians. One is derived from desperation, the other is rooted in ill intent.


----------



## Lazycus (Jul 7, 2008)

Why are so many people getting so upset over those 2 cartoons that feds4u posted?  If you can't see at least some truth in them then you really don't have an open mind.

If your religion (any religion) has it's 'leaders' calling for the death of someone based on a cartoon (or book, or commentary, etc.) and promising those who deliver the death a better afterlife then you should really question the true motives of those 'leaders'.

This gets us right back to the original topic.  Why is it OK to criticize some religions and not others?  Can't we all agree that all religions have faults and all religions have individuals that do shameful things in the name of their religion and deserve to be reported on?


----------



## Hitto (Jul 7, 2008)

You know that in the riots over those cartoons, people died?

"He died because a drawing made him angry" is something I'd feel pretty fucking stupid about in the afterlife!

Anyway, thread turns to shit.


----------



## feds4u (Jul 7, 2008)

For all of you complaining about the cartoons I posted.. Please tell me how I'm wrong. 

I've heard your best arguements and it seems you haven't a leg to stand on.  

I have nothing against the Islamic community. I just want the truth to be addressed.  There is a lot of violence and genocidal talk in the Islamic world.

Have you ever seen television from the middle east? Rabid anti semitism and anti american feelings are a daily occurrence. Remember, in muslim nations my country is considered "the great satan."  But I guess I'm just supposed to be cool with that.

And was the muslim outrage over a few stupid cartoons not unjust? Especially considering their depiction of rival religions?



			
				Hitto said:
			
		

> You know that in the riots over those cartoons, people died?



Yes, people actually died. 

Muslim cartoon fury claims lives 

People died over a fucking cartoon.

Learn the truth about Islam: The religion of "peace."

Islam: The Religion of "Peace"


----------



## Hitto (Jul 7, 2008)

I see what u did thar


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 7, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> I have already given my opinion on your original post and I gave a link and video of Styen to substantiated it. From there I launched a counter argument: If Islam is to become the worlds new unified overlord then who are we to stop it? Your response was, "they are bad and oppressive". My answer was, "they are no worst then we are". From there I've been fielding various questions and rebutting the flawed logic of the angry few.
> 
> May I suggest wrong assumption, wrong conclusion. This was never about if Mark Steyn was right, this was about if he was allowed to post it. And thanks to people like kikuchiyo who assumes any one with a controversial point of view is a bigot, MacLeans is getting sued. If we live in a world where facts and the truth is labeled discrimination or "Islamaphobia" ergo to the point where they are illegal then THAT is the height of corruption you so elegantly dwelled on.
> 
> ...



I don't know where exactly you are going with this. Are you suggesting in some way that Osama did not intend to target civilians? I was watching a News program during another protest of Islamic "moderate" muslims in the Middle East
holding the sign "Anyone who doesn't believe Islam is a peaceful religion should be killed!" Now obviously I'm not generalizing because I believe that muslims in North America are not so extreme but the irony truly speaks for itself.


----------



## Prophet (Jul 7, 2008)

You have quite a knack for twisting your argument into a indecipherable knot. When we argue intent, I best you at it and what do you do? Switch the argument to morality. If I follow your lead there then I'm being overly philosophical. Towers fell and people died. Did the terrorist care how many died? No. Was their sole reason for hitting the towers, to kill people. No.

After this I have come to the conclusion that I am talking to someone who only cares about appearing to be right. You cite a sign as some type of proof. I've seen signs that say "hang that n*gger" Should I assume that is the mantra of all white people? 

You didn't come here to debate, you came to find like minded people who brandish the same ethnocentric banner as yourself. Mission accomplished, you win.


----------



## A4NoOb (Jul 7, 2008)

Prophet said:
			
		

> You have quite a knack for twisting your argument into a indecipherable knot. When we argue intent, I best you at it and what do you do? Switch the argument to morality. If I follow your lead there then I'm being overly philosophical. Towers fell and people died. Did the terrorist care how many died? No. Was their sole reason for hitting the towers, to kill people. No.
> 
> After this I have come to the conclusion that I am talking to someone who only cares about appearing to be right. You cite a sign as some type of proof. I've seen signs that say "hang that n*gger" Should I assume that is the mantra of all white people?
> 
> You didn't come here to debate, you came to find like minded people who brandish the same ethnocentric banner as yourself. Mission accomplished, you win.



Exuse me for being overly emotional when you blatently imply that the victims of 9/11 weren't innocent. If their intent was to NOT kill civilians then how in any way would you deconstruct the goals of the hijacking? What you have cited doesn't add any credibility to your claims. Wounding America MEANS that there will be deaths. Deaths of targeted innocent civilians. Do you honestly expect that terrorists fully loaded with bombs just blow themselves up to no avail? They want to kill as many people as possible. One "quote" (which I'm not going to take as factual evidence) does not compare to the brute fact that terrorists blow themselves killing unnecessary numbers of innocent people with them. Or are you suggesting this is merely a coincidence?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 7, 2008)

Some interesting things so far.
Islam. Like all other religions if you do not try to effect changes that bother me and mine (kick people out of your club and make them lose the benefits that they get from it by all means if they do not follow your rules).
"a religion of peace" Every single thought process (religion is too general a word, perhaps philosophy is better) has been twisted or used to constrict by virtue of the words being flexible as to be rigid will invariably be the death of said philosophy.
One thing that really does get me is the vein of antiintellectualism being sported by those who seem to have the significant audience, I know full well that scholars of Islam were responsible for keeping valuable works around (all the ancient greek, roman and similar works) while others were busy being idiots. However knowledge is an exceptionally powerful currency so hopefully natural selection will kick in.

Places in the world. I have also travelled far and wide and for the most part people are the same:
Most are doing well if they can eat and enjoy a few luxuries.
Most comprehend they are getting screwed over by more than a few people.
Most know enough to have a conversation on the above.
Most know enough to know when to shut their mouth when a policeman is around.
Most could not care less about the actions of others provided they do not overtly affect them.

Terrorists: Presently I speak English down to dialect level from nearly all places where English is represented, other languages are not so bad either.
I am trained in building design, vehicle design and more or less in explosives (they are a twist on high energy reactions and oxidation, not to mention that courtesy of the duality of knowledge such things are available and even mandated by every government who teaches science well enough to allow qualifications to mean something across borders which is most of them).
I have a fair grounding in aspects of biochemistry and medicine (again see duality of knowledge).
I have a fair bit of knowledge on law and procedure thereof (there are two rolling armed response units in this town, one event will see them both go to it giving a good window to do whatever over the other side).
I have no great love for any country in the world and while I may not care to do anything there are others who have no such hangups.
Courtesy of all of that I can get my hands on just about anything I need to do things.
I am not unique and largely self taught from freely and readily available sources.
Simply put do not fear idiots (and to go in with nothing to do but die in an attack makes you an idiot) but fear your neighbour as they are far more dangerous.
Better yet fear nobody and get on with things.

Capitalism. There is a phrase along the lines of politicians, much like nappies/diapers, need to be changed frequently and for the same reason.
To my mind a similar situation needs to occur with capitalism although with boom and bust cycles, presently I see countless standards being ignored (It is my assertion that few would disagree the concept of standards is one of the greatest things humankind has ever created) and a whole thing is bogged down and is largely paper pushing (filled out a health and safety form recently?).

"Jap": There is undoubtedly history behind it but surely it is the intent behind words that matters rather than the word itself. Japanese as a word is not that much longer anyhow.

War as a driving force: countless scientific advances for thousands of years have been credited to it but that is me being coy.

@Xcalibur my my how definitions vary. I would not go so far as to say weasel words but there is certainly a slant (away from state terrorism and actions of states).


----------



## Prophet (Jul 7, 2008)

A4NoOb said:
			
		

> Prophet said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, they were "innocent." But a terrorist act that kills innocent people does not equal: Terrorist are targeting innocent people. It simply means terrorist will kill innocent people, to accomplish their mission.

If the killing of innocent people was the goal, then why strike so early in the day? Why not target places with even greater numbers of innocent people within them. In the eyes of the terrorist, the death of innocent people are an acceptable price, for some greater good to be served. The idea that they some how wish to see people die for no reason more than their own evil intentions, is propaganda of the highest order. 

In beyond good and evil, Nietzsche states, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." 

This is the dangerous line that you and many American's teeter upon. We Monster-ize men; call them terrorists, so that we may wage war on them guilt free. We push logic away, embolden our selves with polarized thought. Me good, Him bad. Surely you understand that American hands have killed countless "innocent" people in this war, but these deaths are somehow different. Somehow less significant. Some men die over cartoons, some men die for mere proximity. Families dead, because they were to close to a target we were bombarding. But who cares? They seemed monstrous too. Even as the nation turned from Afghanistan to Iraq, very few people blinked. They look monstrous too, same color, similar tongue. All one generalized brown faced race of evil doers. Even with the nation as a whole wishing to see us withdraw from Iraq, we wish this for the most selfish of reasons. Not because lives are being lost, but because "American" lives are being lost.

Blood is blood. No life is worth more than another. So two towers fell and men died. While that was happening genocide and famine continued to squeeze the life from the globe. Drought was killing people in Afghanistan, but it took two towers to fall before we decided to take a trip over there. The Taliban, didn't become an evil regime over night. Women were being stoned as a half-time spectacle at soccer games for years, but it took two towers for us to make any moves.

So maybe you are right, maybe I am a radical. I live in New York and even if the entire skyline was leveled, I'd be no more saddened by those deaths than I already am by the various epidemics that encircle the world.


----------



## WelshLadGriff (Jul 7, 2008)

You two still quarreling about something that's been going on for the past 5 years?


----------

