Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[untermensche]

I thought I was clear.

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I do defend the right of bigots to speak as long as it is only themselves put in danger.

If the standard is to judge what is acceptable by its affect on fragile and hypersensitive minds, then obviously you'd agree making fun of Britney Spears is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. There should be laws against it.

Not just fragile and hypersensitive minds but minds made that way by massive US unjustified aggression.

All actions must be looked at with the idea of reasonable expectations.

And if your actions endanger others, and a reasonable person would expect your actions would endanger others, then your actions are not justified.

 

[PyramidHead]

untermensche, do you think the cartoons are protected under the first amendment or not?

Are people who incite others to violence protected?

I know it takes a mind capable of understanding the concept of reasonably expected incitement under present circumstances to grasp it.

So I take that as a 'no'? Should people who draw cartoons that insult Muslims be arrested or fined?

 

[untermensche]

Are people who incite others to violence protected?

I know it takes a mind capable of understanding the concept of reasonably expected incitement under present circumstances to grasp it.

So I take that as a 'no'? Should people who draw cartoons that insult Muslims be arrested or fined?

This is not some general insult.

And drawing something and calling it Mohammed need not be an insult to incite those made most insane as a result of massive and relentlessness US violence for over a decade.

If the US had not been killing Muslims as if they were nothing but ants for 14 years my opinions would be different.

But my opinions must fit real life circumstances or they are just fanciful and worthless.

 

[Trausti]

Not just fragile and hypersensitive minds but minds made that way by massive US unjustified aggression.

Well that explains Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebo.

Why do you give excuse to bad behavior? What bothers me is that your apparent viewpoint is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. Wearing what she wore, she was asking for it. As an Islam apologist, perhaps that's not too surprising; it's the reason women are forced to wear hajib. But it's this abhorrent idea that the perpetrator has no responsibility for self-control. That people who adhere to the Muslim faith cannot be expected to behave like the rest of us. The bigotry of low expectations.

 

[untermensche]

Not just fragile and hypersensitive minds but minds made that way by massive US unjustified aggression.

Well that explains Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebo.

Why do you give excuse to bad behavior? What bothers me is that your apparent viewpoint is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. Wearing what she wore, she was asking for it. As an Islam apologist, perhaps that's not too surprising; it's the reason women are forced to wear hajib. But it's this abhorrent idea that the perpetrator has no responsibility for self-control. That people who adhere to the Muslim faith cannot be expected to behave like the rest of us. The bigotry of low expectations.

It is YOU ignoring and excusing huge crimes and focusing on very small ones.

Your priorities are upside down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the same harm that befalls you if you are placed under house arrest. If you have a comfortable place to live, with plenty of food supplied to you, but you are never allowed to leave, then you are being harmed. Not harmed physiologically, but harmed none the less.

Just because you are not bruised or bleeding does not mean you are unharmed. Being told that you may not do something harms you. Only when that harm is offset by a corresponding benefit is it reasonable.

What is the corresponding benefit of not drawing Mohammed, that renders a ban on doing so reasonable?

This is a rhetorical smoke screen.

In reality anybody who wants to can draw Mohammed from sunrise to sunset.

But that doesn't upset anyone.

What people want is for Muslims to be upset.

That is the great fight here. The right of bigots to upset Muslims and potentially put people in danger as a result.

So you're saying that this picture was drawn at night?

- - - Updated - - -

Not quite. The great fight here is for the right of anyone to upset anyone, regardless of the threats that the offended people might make.

That is the ultimate goal but it ignores the reality of recent history.

It is the US that has gone half way around the world to attack and kill Muslims by the thousands.

And in doing it groups like ISIS have formed.

The ME is a gaping wound thanks to US aggression.

This is not the time to bring up how disastrous Islam is because you can't draw Mohammed. It puts people in danger and accomplishes absolutely nothing. It changes absolutely nothing.

This problem with caricatures of Mohammed will not be solved in the US. It is something that Muslims have to work out in Muslim nations.

But of course they need peace first.

The ME would be a gaping wound anyway. They're just focused on us because we stand in the way of their plans to make a caliphate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are describing vile acts. I don't see that you are describing terrorism, though.

I'm describing violence deliberately targeted at noncombatants for political goals. That's the definition of terrorism.

Terrorism requires an intent to modify the behavior of others as the objective of the violence.

I'm pretty sure killing a child modifies his behavior. By "others" you mean people other than the ones you're killing? Not sure why that would be a requirement. It's a counterintuitive rule -- it would mean if you try to kill half the Muslims in Kosovo you're a terrorist but if you try to kill them all you're not.

Be that as it may, you think when he murdered that poetess it never occurred to Mohammed what effect that might have on the next person tempted to write an insulting poem about him?

What political goals are you ascribing to Mohammed? Atrocities, yes, but that was simply a particularly vile form of looting. Not all atrocities are terrorism.

 

[Trausti]

Well that explains Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebo.

Why do you give excuse to bad behavior? What bothers me is that your apparent viewpoint is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. Wearing what she wore, she was asking for it. As an Islam apologist, perhaps that's not too surprising; it's the reason women are forced to wear hajib. But it's this abhorrent idea that the perpetrator has no responsibility for self-control. That people who adhere to the Muslim faith cannot be expected to behave like the rest of us. The bigotry of low expectations.

It is YOU ignoring and excusing huge crimes and focusing on very small ones.

Your priorities are upside down.

Well, no. It is you who are ignoring all the atrocities committed against the West by Muslims. The shores of Tripoli and all that. How far back is it permitted to go to excuse bad behavior? If you're going to use the silly argument of past "huge crimes" to excuse fragile minds, then it was the Muslims who first provoked the West and Christendom (North Africa used to be all Christian) by invading their lands and making them slaves.

 

[untermensche]

It is YOU ignoring and excusing huge crimes and focusing on very small ones.

Your priorities are upside down.

Well, no. It is you who are ignoring all the atrocities committed against the West by Muslims. The shores of Tripoli and all that. How far back is it permitted to go to excuse bad behavior? If you're going to use the silly argument of past "huge crimes" to excuse fragile minds, then it was the Muslims who first provoked the West and Christendom (North Africa used to be all Christian) by invading their lands and making them slaves.

Holy fuck!! The shores of Tripoli?

The problem US slave traders had with Muslim slave traders was that Muslim slave traders would turn white people into slaves.

I can see how you recognize the moral superiority of US slave traders.

Why don't we reduce the discussion to the level of reason.

Over the past 14 years the great menace in the world has been the US and the damage it has caused is incalculable.

It does absolutely no good to focus on the tiny acts committed by Muslims when we have such a massive injustice right in front of us.

 

[Axulus]

Yes, to really score points he should really be arguing about events from history that have abso-fucking-nothing whatever to do with the topic at hand.

I nominate the (second) Siege of Vienna.

Your narrow vision isn't an argument.

The people killed in Texas were allegedly connected to ISIS.

ISIS exists because the US destroyed Iraq, and did it for no reason beyond a desire to dominate.

I know the millions who's lives were destroyed mean nothing to you. They are Muslims after all.

The Islamists have been trying to set up a Caliphate since the Muslim Brotherhood was founded back in 1928. What makes you think the Syrian civil war wouldn't have happened without Iraq invasion, and that some version of ISIS wouldn't have set up shop in the chaos of that war?

Of course, you seem not to care one whit for the millions of muslim lives that have been destroyed by other muslims. They weren't destroyed by the US after all.

 

[untermensche]

Your narrow vision isn't an argument.

The people killed in Texas were allegedly connected to ISIS.

ISIS exists because the US destroyed Iraq, and did it for no reason beyond a desire to dominate.

I know the millions who's lives were destroyed mean nothing to you. They are Muslims after all.

The Islamists have been trying to set up a Caliphate since the Muslim Brotherhood was founded back in 1928. What makes you think the Syrian civil war wouldn't have happened without Iraq invasion, and that some version of ISIS wouldn't have set up shop in the chaos of that war?

Of course, you seem not to care one whit for the millions of muslim lives that have been destroyed by other muslims. They weren't destroyed by the US after all.

I talk about what actually exists and why.

ISIS exists because of the massive act of US terrorism called the invasion of Iraq.

You don't get to cheer for the senseless attack of millions and then also get to cry about the result.

 

[Axulus]

ISIS exists because of the massive act of US terrorism called the invasion of Iraq.

Prove it. Prove that no Caliphate would've been set up anywhere in the ME without Iraq war.

 

[Axulus]

It does absolutely no good to focus on the tiny acts committed by Muslims when we have such a massive injustice right in front of us.

You mean tiny acts committed by people like this guy?

Or maybe the two million killed (including a genocide), and including over 1 million killed in Iraq alone due to a needless war with Iran (Saddam ordered the initial invasion of Iran), due to the acts of this guy, were nothing worth getting upset about, since it wasn't done by the US. Tiny acts, indeed.

 

[untermensche]

ISIS exists because of the massive act of US terrorism called the invasion of Iraq.

Prove it. Prove that no Caliphate would've been set up anywhere in the ME without Iraq war.

Only a fool would ask somebody to prove a negative.

Or would think that things would be the same minus a massive invasion and decade long occupation.

 

[PyramidHead]

So I take that as a 'no'? Should people who draw cartoons that insult Muslims be arrested or fined?

This is not some general insult.

And drawing something and calling it Mohammed need not be an insult to incite those made most insane as a result of massive and relentlessness US violence for over a decade.

If the US had not been killing Muslims as if they were nothing but ants for 14 years my opinions would be different.

But my opinions must fit real life circumstances or they are just fanciful and worthless.

Then let's make it specific: do you think that the people who drew these actual cartoons (the survivors, anyway) should be legally penalized for the drawings? If so, what do you think the penalty should be?

 

[Axulus]

Something else to consider.

Saddam was in power for 8,000 or so days.

His "tiny actions" are responsible for some 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day during this reign. This is completely ignoring the non-civilian and deaths his actions caused Iraq and Iran and the civilian deaths his actions caused Iran during Iraq-Iran war.

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Iraq body count puts the total violent deaths, including civilians and combatants since the start of the Iraq war at 211,000. I apparently need to remind you that most of these deaths were committed by Iraqis killing other Iraqis, but, let's just use this number for comparison purposes.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

The invasion began March 20, 2003, so that puts the number of days since the invasion at 4,436. Dividing 211,000 by this amount gives us an average of 48 civilian and combatant deaths per day. The average civilian deaths after US invasion was _lower_ than average civilian deaths while Saddam was in power. This is just a fact.

 

[Axulus]

Prove it. Prove that no Caliphate would've been set up anywhere in the ME without Iraq war.

Only a fool would ask somebody to prove a negative.

Or would think that things would be the same minus a massive invasion and decade long occupation.

Only a fool would claim to have psychic powers like you do. Do your psychic powers also magically believe that Saddam's average civilian death rate would've been below 48 per day, well below his average of 75-125 per day during his 8,000 days in power? Or does none of this matter because the US isn't behind it?

 

[untermensche]

His "tiny actions" are responsible for some 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day during this reign. This is completely ignoring the non-civilian and deaths his actions caused Iraq and Iran and the civilian deaths his actions caused Iran during Iraq-Iran war.

How exactly does this justify further US crimes committed against the Iraqi people?

Hussein was helped to power by the US. His worst crimes were committed with US weapons and US consent. He gassed the Kurds with US helicopters and chemicals and the US responded by removing Iraq from the list of States involved in terrorism so the US could sell Hussein more weapons. He invaded Iran with the consent and urging of the US with US weapons as well.

None of this justifies an unprovoked invasion that resulted in the deaths of about one million people.

...The average civilian deaths after US invasion was _lower_ than average civilian deaths while Saddam was in power. This is just a fact.

This is only if we completely ignore the principles the US spelled out at Nuremberg.

The principle the US used to execute Germans after WWII was that all crimes that arise as a result of an unprovoked invasion were the responsibility of the invading nation.

Morally the US is responsible for ALL civilian deaths that occurred and still occur in the region as a result of that immoral invasion.

 

[untermensche]

Only a fool would ask somebody to prove a negative.

Or would think that things would be the same minus a massive invasion and decade long occupation.

Only a fool would claim to have psychic powers like you do. Do your psychic powers also magically believe that Saddam's average civilian death rate would've been below 48 per day, well below his average of 75-125 per day during his 8,000 days in power? Or does none of this matter because the US isn't behind it?

Nice non-response. But of course if I had to defend your position I would think the best tactic would be to run and hide too.

 

[Axulus]

None of this justifies an unprovoked invasion that resulted in the deaths of about one million people.

Apparently you don't know how to round. If you are going to round to the nearest million, you actually need to round down to zero.

I never said the invasion was justified. But your virulent anti-Americanism is blinding you full of logical fallacies and crazy conspiratorial thinking, and giving you confidence that you have psychic powers that you just somehow know that Saddam wouldn't have committed more "tiny actions" to kill many more people and that somehow ISIS or some other Caliphate wanna-be would've never formed in the ME without US invasion.

Everything bad that happens in the world, the US is some how behind it in your view. Not rational at all. You are blinded by a fanatic ideology.