Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

I am glad that you agree, so why not start your campaign of free speech from your own home? Why do you vote for a government run by AIPAC lobbyist and CFR who made and suppprt such laws?

What have I said that would give you the impression that I *DON'T* already engage in campaigns such as these? Or that I support these laws and special interest groups?

You see I don't care if you draw a cartoon. What I see as despicable is the fact that you don't sort your act out but are ever ready lecturing us about free speech!

I'm sorry to say, but despite what you may think, I do not have the ability to snap my fingers and solve all the problems in my country instantly. It is a time consuming, difficult process that happens gradually.

I do, have the ability to look at multiple issues, including ones outside my own arbitrary borders and try to address issues where I see them, when I see them. Not only can I work towards improving my society, I can work to prevent the rights and freedoms we have already earned from being taken away.

What is the point of fighting for additional rights and freedoms when you are willing to let the first terrorist pissed off over a cartoon to change the laws and revoke your rights and freedoms?

That is very absurd, parties should act in the best interest of the public not their own vested interests!

First of all, I agree. Second of all, what exactly do you think they are doing? They think that overall their policies are 'best' and they need to do whatever they can to promote them. If this means rejectng members of their own party for being unpopular or for going against the parties wishes -- they believe that is best for the public -- it gives the opposition less ammunition and traction. I find you quite naive if you cannot understand this simple idea.

Funds are not given for the "best interest of the party", they are rather given from our taxes so that parties act in the best interest of tax payers.

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that private donations were allowed. I am also going to repeat that every political party thinks that what they are doing *is* the best for the public.

If a public servant makes such a claim, it is governments responsibility to investigate the matter, if the findings of the investigation indicate that the public servant has made false allegations only then they should be fired and fined in order to prevent future false allegations from party members.

Once again, not all allegations are credible. Why waste money and alienate political allies over a crackpot, unfounded, allegation? The cost is quite extreme.

That is right, that is why I suggest that you should address your own policies first before you tell others what is right and what is wrong.

I can focus on more than one thing over the course of my life.

No.

Then how, exactly, does you pointing out a timeline of US military actions have to do with a discussion of the morality of defending human rights?

There is no jump. Every human being has the right to live! America is stepping on this fundamental right by killing thousands of human beings.

Once again your naivety shows through. There are times when, unfortunately, the only way to defend self, country, or human rights is through violence. Yes, thousands of people may die, but they may die due to the defense of these human rights, or *IN THE DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE*. A thousand may die removing a terrorist regime, but how many will die if the regime is allowed to stand? A thousand may die, but billions will have their rights -- including their right to live secured.

Yes, America has killed some people -- and yes, that is stepping on their human right to live, but at times in life there may be no other way. As you grow and mature you may understand this.

This is why I am *CONSTANTLY* advocating for a civilized approach. If both parties come to the table and discuss things in a civilized manner, the need for force is drastically reduced -- and everyone gets to exercise their rights -- but when a terrorist regime crashes planes into civilian buildings, or fire-bombs embassies, or attacks a cartoonist, or threatens death to all those that do not follow their rules there is only one response.

If one side is barbaric and refusing to act civilized force may be needed. It's a sad fact of life that you can't just ask a terrorists to "pretty please, with sugar on top, don't murder thousands of civilians" and expect them to respect your wishes.

You should first worry about human beings and then their human rights.

I do, don't worry.

Furthermore, imposing democracy by guns and B52s is against human rights and undemocratic.

While you might think it is against human rights, you are ignoring the whole picture. Again, occasionally force must be used against a few to ensure the rights of the many. It's simple.

Additionally, while you may think it is undemocratic to use force to establish a democracy, you are again ignoring the whole picture. Until free, and safe access to voting and information is allowed democracy cannot happen. The public cannot make an intelligent decision regarding self governance when they are uneducated, and repressed. Using force to allow them to become educated and exercise their rights to vote is occasionally needed.

You are arguing for the status quo here -- just because the system is established and those whose rights are violated are too repressed and afraid to speak out that they must not want their rights.

So if you are a champion of human rights, you would not worry about a cartoon but would worry about thousands of people who are tortured in Gitmo, Bagram and the Salt Pit.

You really do have a one track mind, don't you. When you are hungery and worried about what you are going to make for supper do you stop caring about human rights? Why would you assume that other people are unable to be concerned with more than one thing at a time?

Here is a recent article I published on my site http://www.afghanvoice.com/human-rig...-research.html

Allow me to summerize this for you.

I am against violence and I certainly don't support violent protests and i am all for freedom of speech. I don't support them because it is not the Sunnah of our Prophet. When the Quraish pelted Mohammad pbuh with stones and pebbles, the Muslims were patient they didn't resort to violence. When the women of Quraish threw garbage on Mohammad pbuh's from rooftops, the Muslims didn't resort to violence, they remained patient. So I uphold those principles.

Good. It's a start.

My argument here is not about cartoons or anything like that . My argument is that you have no right to lecture us about freedom of speech and human rights when you don't adhere to those principles yourself.

Please stop acting so niave. When have I *once* stood in the way of free speech? I personally fully and consistenly support free speech publically on these forums, and that is the only thing you know about me. You make claims that I have no right to support these things, when I have the universal right to free speech to support any damn thing I please. You know nothing about my life in the real world, other than the politcal and religious opinions that I have expressed here -- and I consistently support free speech and advocate spreading free speech.

Even when I have faced personal attacks -- even personal attacks and demonizations that I have already debunked several times I support the right of the speaker to attack me.

Start your campaign from your own home and work outward.[/QUOTE]

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Dear Ozzy, do you feel there are contradictions between the Quran and Hadith. If so, can you provide us with detail.

With Respect

[akbarkhan]

Once again, not all allegations are credible. Why waste money and alienate political allies over a crackpot, unfounded, allegation? The cost is quite extreme.

Young man you need to wake up and keep yourself upto date! The prime minister of Haiti confirms it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3-6B4PXJ-E&feature=related

There are times when, unfortunately, the only way to defend self, country, or human rights is through violence.

Exactly what Afghans are doing now.

[ozymandias]

Dear Ozzy, do you feel there are contradictions between the Quran and Hadith. If so, can you provide us with detail.

With Respect

I have not completed my study of these, and have not researched enough to state either way at this time. To make such statements based completely on an a single reading of a single translation, with very little research into the translation, word choice, and background of the writings would be to cause unnecessary, and inappropriate controversy and contention.

[ozymandias]

Young man you need to wake up and keep yourself upto date! The prime minister of Haiti confirms it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3-6B4PXJ-E&feature=related

Exactly what Afghans are doing now.

No. No. NO.

I will say it one more time, and I will try to state it as clearly as possible, and if you continue to refuse to acknowledge that I make this statement your intellectual dishonesty will make any further conversations with you pointless.

There is a huge difference between military actions resorting in violence against a government and it's military, and wanton destruction and terrorizing civilians.

You are intentionally ignoring the fact that there is a difference between a missile striking a military installation and a suicide bomber blowing up a subway.

[ozymandias]

I dont get why Ozy does not understand that our response is very simple.

I suspect it may be related to you refusing to understand that the issue is not as simple as you pretend it is.

Terrorists can not be Muslims.

Are you Allah? Are you Mohammad? No? Then how can you dictate what is and is not Islam?

You are ignoring the fact that every one of these terrorists that does so in the name of Islam can claim that *you* are the one that is not Islamic.

I am simply trying to look at the deeper issue and not ignore the problem by claiming that the people that do not fit into your positive definition of Islam are not Islamic. Furthermore, you are creating an additional problem when you choose to ignore these Islamic criminals (and governments, let's not forget that terrorists are not the only radical and extremist members of Islam) as the rest of the world is all too willing to admit that they are members of your religion.

While you might think you are helping your cause by saying 'oh, but those extremists are not being truly Islamic -- as I define the term', the rest of the world is saying 'Look at all the terrorism done in the name of Islam! Why do the more moderate members of Islam ignore all the terrorists? Why do they refuse to condemn the acts of terrorism in their name?'

I also find it interesting that people go from claiming 'well those that do not see Islam the same why I do are not really Islamic' -- but then turn around and state that 'Islam is the fastest growing religion' and 'insulting 2 billion Muslims is not free speech' (both of which statements are false, anyway). If you are going to state that anyone that does not see Islam the same way as you is not Islamic, you have to admit the portion of the world that fits your new definition is *very* small.

Please do not insult our religion.

Please do not insult our intelligence, common sense, or critical thinking abilities.

That is all we say and ask for..

It's not really 'asking' when it is demanded from the end of a gun.

[ozymandias]

I dont get why Ozy does not understand that our response is very simple.

I suspect it may be related to you refusing to understand that the issue is not as simple as you pretend it is.

Terrorists can not be Muslims.

Are you Allah? Are you Mohammad? No? Then how can you dictate what is and is not Islam?

You are ignoring the fact that every one of these terrorists that does so in the name of Islam can claim that *you* are the one that is not Islamic.

I am simply trying to look at the deeper issue and not ignore the problem by claiming that the people that do not fit into your positive definition of Islam are not Islamic. Furthermore, you are creating an additional problem when you choose to ignore these Islamic criminals (and governments, let's not forget that terrorists are not the only radical and extremist members of Islam) as the rest of the world is all too willing to admit that they are members of your religion.

While you might think you are helping your cause by saying 'oh, but those extremists are not being truly Islamic -- as I define the term', the rest of the world is saying 'Look at all the terrorism done in the name of Islam! Why do the more moderate members of Islam ignore all the terrorists? Why do they refuse to condemn the acts of terrorism in their name?'

I also find it interesting that people go from claiming 'well those that do not see Islam the same why I do are not really Islamic' -- but then turn around and state that 'Islam is the fastest growing religion' and 'insulting 2 billion Muslims is not free speech' (both of which statements are false, anyway). If you are going to state that anyone that does not see Islam the same way as you is not Islamic, you have to admit the portion of the world that fits your new definition is *very* small.

Please do not insult our religion.

Please do not insult our intelligence, common sense, or critical thinking abilities.

That is all we say and ask for..

It's not really 'asking' when it is demanded from the end of a gun.

[ozymandias]

Ozy,
Since its your topic do you mind if I participate?


Manana

Bring your friends!

[ozymandias]

I disagree with Ozymandias.

Freedom of speech has it's limits.

I agree. Free speech *does* have limits -- the limit is what ever the speaker chooses not to say.

Making fun of our prophet is not freedom of speech.

Sorry -- but it is. How could it be called free speech with such a restrictive and arbitrary limit?

It's insulting.

Yes. It is insulting -- HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT MATTER. It is still free speech even if you feel it is insulting. Please show me in the UN declaration of human rights where the right to not be insulted exists.

[akbarkhan]

You are intentionally ignoring the fact that there is a difference between a missile striking a military installation and a suicide bomber blowing up a subway.

Young kid, you seem to have the memory of a gold fish, remember Hiroshima Nagasaki? Ever heard of the My Lai Massacre, where most of the victims were women & children? I am not ignoring anything, infact its you who ignores the history, tactics and CIA black ops of a state that has sponsored terrorism for decades and does so still to this very day.

Prominent social scientists & historians such as Zinn, Mayer, Chomsky and Falk all state that the United States government has sponsored & harbored terrorists under the guise of national interests for decades. Infact Zinn explicitly states that Hiroshima/Nagasaki is an act of state terrorism no matter how one looks at it. Scientists conclude that the Japanese will suffer from Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings at least until 2020s. Furthermore, the US government sponsored, trained, and funded the Contras against the government of Nicaragua, Professor Gareau has actually deemed this act of terrorism as "wholesale terrorism".

Go make your own wrongs right before you point fingers at others. Muslims do not instigate violence, but when their rights are stepped upon, their resources are stolen, their democractic regimes are toppled, their sovereignty is violated - only then do they resort to violence as a means of defending their national, social and religious integrities. Not every state or nation is like unto Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt bending over backwards in the face of hegemony and oppression!

I rather spend my time discussing for solutions with people who know what they are talking about and are unbiased rather than wasting my time with toddlers who haven't even been potty trained yet.

[ozymandias]

I understand the issue.

You may, but you are making comments that indicate otherwise.

I never dictated, all I am saying is those who commit terrorism are not Muslim.

All hail the new prophet Sabrina! As I understand it, only prophets can inerrantly interpret the will of Allah.

No they cant.

They can. They do. It's a *fact* that they do. You may choose to disagree with them, and you may be able to present evidence that you are right, but only Allah and the prophets can honestly say who is correct. Who is correct is a matter of opinion (until a prophet or Allah chimes in, anyway), but what they can and do say is a matter of fact. This is exactly the problem. You are so narrow minded that you refuse to see the world as it is -- and this is why you are grouped with the terrorists in the minds of outsiders.

You may *think* that you are clearly different from the terrorists and criminals acting in what they think is the name of Islam, but to an outsider who is not biased to think that anyone that is not of your sect is not Islam -- it is not so clear cut.

Rather than ignore the issue and pretend they are not part of Islam, you need to speak up -- both to them, and correct the 'errors' of their ways -- and to show the world what the 'true' Islam is all about. As it is, you sit quietly and let the terrorists and extremist **** dictate what parts of Islam the world sees on a daily basis.

I try to be a good Muslimah so I am Muslim.

Even Bin Laden can claim that! In the eyes of the terrorists and extremists it *IS* good to kill the innocents of the west. It *IS* good to honor kill rape victims. It *IS* good to violate free speech! They can and do turn the tables and say that what you think is bad is what makes them good.

Once you realize this, you can start seeing how to solve the problem. As it is you are refusing to even look at the source of the problem, and instead complain about the results.

They on the other hand are killing innocent people. Islam does not allow that so they are eliminated.

Funny you should say that. I recently read a short biography about Bin Laden that stated that he, and the Taliban, had been able to use the Koran to not only justify his actions but to call others to his cause.

*PLEASE* note I am *NOT* saying his interpretations are correct, I am simply stating that *HE BELIEVES THEY ARE* just as *YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE*. Since you are not a prophet, and we do not have one around to tell us who is right, all we can look and see is "Can the statement be reasonably supported? Can both sides honestly claim to believe what they are saying?" If they can, and they are, you cannot simply state one is wrong. It's not even a matter of right or wrong, its a matter of 'do they, in their eyes, think they are on the right path for their religion?'.

The media is making it seem like they are one of us.

No. They are claiming to be Islamic, not the media, at least at first. Many of the terrorist groups, or the 'Islamic' countries are *SELF IDENTIFYING*, and absent a definition to prove them wrong, the media has to go with it.

Answer me here:
Why is it that when a Muslim does something the media says all over

"MUSLIM MAN DID THIS"

but when a christian kills someone.

"**** JOHNSON SHOT SOMEONE, HE KILLED 3"

Have you not been paying attention to the news? When religion is brought in, the killings were either believed to be based on religion, or were in fact based on religion. Recently when the christian extremist militia was plotting to overthrow the US government it was brought up. When a christian extremist kills doctors? Its brought up -- but you *choose* to ignore these things, as it is contrary to your preconceived notion and your wish to play the victim.

Further more when these christian terrorists are brought to light the christian clergy do not simply say 'Oh, nope, not a christian, not our problem' they bring out the extremist christian's dogma, and show how it differs from their way. They use it as a tool to convert more to their way.

If the same act is committed by a Muslim

"A MUSLIM shot someone, he killed 3"

If a muslim killed because he thought his faith called him to do it, that is fair and just.

We do not ignore them at all. We are working on eliminating them. But when we have people in the west making fun of our religion, It delays the process.

People make fun of *every* religion -- you cannot use that as an excuse.

No.
Its fairly simple. We respect freedom of speech

Clearly not all of you do. Look in this thread alone -- a good many Muslims very clearly do *NOT* support free speech. Are you going to use your self appointed status as a prophet to decree that they are not Muslims? or are you going to admit that the opinions of Islamic people can, and does vary from yours?

we have devoted ourselves to Islam. Do not insult our religion. That is all we ask you in the most warmest tone possible.

*You*, as an individual may be *asking*, but *you* as a religion are demanding.

Feel free to *ask*, and give justification why, and people will respect that. It's only when people feel that free speech is being threatened and opposed through violence that these issues became a big deal.

Can those people not live without insulting our religion. Is it absolute necessary to make fun of us?

Yes, they can -- but as human beings with the rights to free speech, they have the right to say what ever they want.

Are we like a western Joke?

A little bit -- but much of that is the barbaric way some Islamic people and countries act -- and then some of you run around claiming that Islam is the most civilized religion. Any hypocrite is seen as a joke.

[ozymandias]

Young kid, you seem to have the memory of a gold fish, remember Hiroshima Nagasaki?

You must be new. I already spoke at length and spoke out against this horrible horrible act. The *only* defense to that action is that the people in charge honestly thought that it was a valid military move that would end a horrible, horrible war, and save more lives, and protect more rights in the long run.

That said, it was still despicable, and should never have occurred.

Ever heard of the My Lai Massacre, where most of the victims were women & children?

Funny how you ignore the fact that the government charged the soldiers with criminal acts.

Let me also remind you that according to my definition, which has been consistent, these acts would constitute terrorism, especially if done with the full knowledge of what they were doing.

That said, the soldiers in that altercation were given bad intelligence information and had been briefed that the occupants of the city were all enemy combatants. This does *NOT* defend them, nor their illegal and despicable acts beyond the call of duty, but it points out that even in this example, there is a difference between what they did and a suicide bombing, knowing full well that the targets were innocent civilians.

Once again, I do not condone terrorism, in any name, or by any government.

I am not ignoring anything, infact its you who ignores the history, tactics and CIA black ops of a state that has sponsored terrorism for decades and does so still to this very day.

Prominent social scientists & historians such as Zinn, Mayer, Chomsky and Falk all state that the United States government has sponsored & harbored terrorists under the guise of national interests for decades. Infact Zinn explicitly states that Hiroshima/Nagasaki is an act of state terrorism no matter how one looks at it.

I believe Zinn is right -- and by all definitions of terrorism commonly accepted today, no one can make a legitimate argument otherwise. In fact, it is only by using uncommon, twisted definitions that you can even try.

Scientists conclude that the Japanese will suffer from Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings at least until 2020s.

Only physiologically. Psychologically, I have a feeling that it will last much longer. The Japanese were dramatically changed by those events culturally, politically, and economically -- and in some cases for the better. They have a much smaller military complex than other modern nations and have become an economic powerhouse -- effects that are tough to measure but should not have been forced upon them.

Furthermore, the US government sponsored, trained, and funded the Contras against the government of Nicaragua, Professor Gareau has actually deemed this act of terrorism as "wholesale terrorism".

I feel in many cases, it was -- especially once full facts where known. That said, once again, if people were operating under false intelligence there are some mitigating factors at play.

Go make your own wrongs right before you point fingers at others.

Working on it. Fortunately I have enough brain power and fingers to work on more than one problem at a time.

Muslims do not instigate violence,

False, and demonstrably so.

but when their rights are stepped upon, their resources are stolen, their democractic regimes are toppled, their sovereignty is violated - only then do they resort to violence as a means of defending their national, social and religious integrities.

Once again you are being deliberately dishonest. Look at the largest Islam countries and you will see how many of those claims of yours are false.

Not every state or nation is like unto Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Egypt bending over backwards in the face of hegemony and oppression!

Funny you should bring up Saudi Arabia. They are one of the largest violators of basic human rights in existence right now -- and they show your above statement to be false many times over.

I rather spend my time discussing for solutions with people who know what they are talking about and are unbiased rather than wasting my time with toddlers who haven't even been potty trained yet.

Fair enough. I feel quite the same way. once you are potty trained, feel free to come back and join the conversation. Until then you deliberate dishonestly, your biases, and your inability to discuss the issue like a rational intellectual means you are simply going to impede progress.

[ozymandias]

I'm sorry.

I fully admit to having a character flaw, and I am trying to better myself and address it. When I find myself being insulted, I sometimes allow myself to stoop down to the level of the insulter, and fire back.

I know I should be the bigger man, but occasionally I find myself conversing with some one, particularly a member of the 'Willfully Ignorant' tribe, and allow them to pull me off topic.

I will work to avoid returning insults, no matter of ignorant, bigoted, biased, or dishonest I find a person.

That said, lets avoid derailing this thread even further and stick to the topic at hand.

[akbarkhan]

Funny how you ignore the fact that the government charged the soldiers with criminal acts.

Let me also remind you that according to my definition, which has been consistent, these acts would constitute terrorism, especially if done with the full knowledge of what they were doing.

That said, the soldiers in that altercation were given bad intelligence information and had been briefed that the occupants of the city were all enemy combatants. This does *NOT* defend them, nor their illegal and despicable acts beyond the call of duty, but it points out that even in this example, there is a difference between what they did and a suicide bombing, knowing full well that the targets were innocent civilians.

Charging people doesn't bring back the lives of hundreds of innocent people, we both know that. With that said, if charging people who commit such crimes brings any justice, which it does, then surely Bush and Co should be taken to Hague tribunal for their crimes against innocent Iraqies?

O'wait that can't happen because you guys can massacre civilians, invade countries and then justify your actions based on 'bad intelligence'.

You guys do really have the memory of a gold fish don't you? Acts of terrorism/suicide bombings in towns, cities and markets targeting civilians? Heard of false flag operations? Allow me to remind you of Operation Northwoods. The proposal was to get CIA and its offshoots to "commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere" developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

Here are just a couple of the proposals, i am quoting these from a NOFORN document dated 13 March 1962:

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

"It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

Bamford in his book titled Body of Secrets - Anatomy of the ultra-secret National Security Agency states the following on page 77:

"According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international"

"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

Operation Northwoods is not an individual case, there are tons of other well researched cases where the US government has resorted to acts of terrorism in order to secure its interests. We have the case of Iraqies who were given cars laid with remote controlled bombs, these Iraqies were then asked to deliver materials to densely crowded markets. One the car was in the market they would then detonate it remotely making it look like a suicide bombing.

Based on these factual evidence, revelations and precendents how can you expect people to believe your media, government and your 'facts'? How can you trust the media when its almost entirely owned by either one individual or entities with a single political objective?

Funny you should bring up Saudi Arabia. They are one of the largest violators of basic human rights in existence right now -- and they show your above statement to be false many times over.

Exactly! If they are one of the largest violators of basic human rights then why has the halo sporting US government supported that regime for decades? One of the largest violators of basic human rights is Israel who has broken 168 United Nations resolutions, a state that doesn't even allow aid to reach Palastinians, why is the US funding, supporting and arming Israel? A state that was formed as a result of terrorist acts i.e the deir yassin massacre carried out by Irgun Zwai Leumi. No, the legacy of Eitan Livni reigns in the summits of AIPAC and manifests itself in the foreign policy of their tool, that is, the United States of America.

And for your information, I am not an intellectual nor am I here for intellectual discussion. I am here to remind people of their their double standards and their incapacity to understand the root causes of the conflicts.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandais,
you said

"People make fun of every religion, do not use it as an excuse"

I did not understand what you meant by that, are you implying that we should keep quiet while the west makes a comedy show out of the Quran?

Not at all. I am saying you cannot use the fact that Islam, like every religion, is being mocked to become uncivilized, or fail to root the uncivilized members of your faith out.

Every religion is mocked and made a comedy to somebody -- but that does not eliminate their obligation to police themselves and their fellow followers. People around here act like Islam is the only religion that people turn into a joke -- and this is completely not true.

You have every right to take *civilized* steps to protect your religion from mockery -- but the second that you act uncivilized, support the uncivilized, or even *ignore* the uncivilized you are vindicating all the jokes people make about your religion being backwards, and uncivilized.

I want to respond to the rest of it as well after you clarify the above.


(Nice to meet you, nice talking to you, nice to have you with us)

Waiting patiently.