RichieBees Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 is the muslim brotherhood the new boogieman for pussyass americans e: zomg scary muslims :( they hate women and gays.. wait a minute thats p much the conservative christian view aswell, maybe we can get along after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergeantk Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 is the muslim brotherhood the new boogieman for pussyass americans e: zomg scary muslims :( they hate women and gays.. wait a minute thats p much the conservative christian view aswell, maybe we can get along after all yeah but they wear turbans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 is the muslim brotherhood the new boogieman for pussyass americans e: zomg scary muslims :( they hate women and gays.. wait a minute thats p much the conservative christian view aswell, maybe we can get along after all What? This is about human oppression. In no way am I a supporter of any religion. Also are you calling Israel and the Jews pussies too? It's amazing to see people defend Islam yet criticize Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 hah, actually nm, there is a drill indeed. but i guess i can still ask you to bump this particular post after nothing actually happens ? at least have the decency to edit your ignorance in the previous post. First you call him stupid for stating a fact, then you say 'hah' in your next post without admitting your idiocy. it would be kinda cheap if i edited it out, i simply didn't expect of delete to state something remotely sensible/factual, the second part of his post is still a good enough reason to call him stupid though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 they aren't protesting over that movie, but it's a convenient scapegoat for the western media instead of tackling the more nuanced subject of pent up resentment for decades of US imperialism and murder to sum it up, they don't hate us because of our freedoms, they hate us because we kill them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieBees Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 nah its just the way i hear people refering to "the muslim brotherhood" sounds like theyre the new baddies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I don't hear much about the Muslim Brotherhood in my neck of the woods. Maybe you English hooligans are the real pussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 why can't we be annoyed by Islamic extremism now? Not to add fuel to an uncomfortable debate, but I'm tired of (some) Muslims having a hair-trigger as well. Of course I'm also tired of knee-jerk reactions from the tea party in the US, and the Chinese and Japanese getting pissed about some rocks out in the water, etc etc... I found this video mostly hilarious. I'd also like to think I could sit down with some Muslim dude and enjoy a kebab together. i think you're completely entitled to have rage or dislike of any type of religious extremist. I don't have any respect or love for people who are motivated by such a narrow world view. However, i think it's misguided and misplaced rage that whenever a major uprising or violent act happens in the middle east against americans to deduce to 'those goddam islamic extremists'. Those regions just happen to be very culturally different than the west, islam is a huge part of the society whether we like it or not. If they were whirling dervishes, it would be equally misguided that everytime the whirling dervishes protested or fought against us out of retaliation for our foriegn policy and imperialism to say 'goddam those angry whirling dervishes'.Islam may contribute to their determination and ability to martyr themselves, but i don't think their 'islamic extremism' is at the root of why they have so much resentment towards america. Again it's a very easy scapegoat for Americans to look at instead of evaluate the more nuanced reality of why there is so much pent up aggression towards the west in those regions. im picking up what youre throwing down, but at the same time, religious belief is being used to corral otherwise logical people into acts of violent extremism. the fact that the US always has their thumb on most of Islamic societies in the Middle East is more likely for them to attach themselves to something seemingly stable and of course, theologically righteous. its apples and oranges, yes, but they are all in the same fucked up fruit basket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Probably because the Saudi government would have absolutely no qualms brutally executing anyone acting violently without permission. lol yeah... fuckin' Saudi Arabia Woops here's the quote I was looking for: Darwish noted that half of the voters in Egypt voted against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia, while Egyptian voters in the USA supported the Islamist agenda in far greater percentages, perhaps even 95%. She finds that these voters in the USA are more radical than the Egyptian populace overall. http://frontpagemag....d-for-islamist/ I think the article highlights the fact that a lot of Muslim expats in the US (and likely UK) are often quite extreme in their views BUT I'm skeptical of that 95% conclusion. I'm sure if it included the millions of Egyptian-Americans who weren't dual citizens (and therefor couldn't cast ballots) it'd be back to 50/50 or lower. Also this publication is clearly oriented toward conservative rhetoric about Islamization in the US, which is mostly hot air, especially when it's that "PC democrat liberals are letting this happen" bullshit argument. I am wary of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic zealots period, but I also know Western AND many Arab governments actively fight such elements, especially since there's a power struggle element to this conflict in Arab countries domestically. Hell, it's likely some of these extreme Muslim Egyptian expats in question have specifically emigrated to the US because of political reasons before the revolution - that would explain the 95% vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 50 percent is still very high in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 50 percent is still very high in my opinion. true - and I could also queue a lot of alarming statistics about, I dunno, American Christians and their views on gays, non-Christians, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc...but as mentioned earlier that's a different context and way different level altogether, even if the parallels are strikingly similar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakapo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Walking home the other week, I passed a large group of fat ninjas coming out of an islamic centre. I'd been farting all the way home and as I passed I let out a long sonorous fart without even thinking. If that had been the local WI coming out of a church there's no way I would have done that. Am I a latent racist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieBees Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 youre lucky they didnt get out their ali-baba swords and fucking chop you in half mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murve33 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Woops here's the quote I was looking for: Darwish noted that half of the voters in Egypt voted against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia, while Egyptian voters in the USA supported the Islamist agenda in far greater percentages, perhaps even 95%. She finds that these voters in the USA are more radical than the Egyptian populace overall. http://frontpagemag....d-for-islamist/ Why is it bad that Egyptian Americans overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood? President Morsi seems like a P-Cool guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dese manz hatin Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 There's also the fact that many just voted for him because they wanted to prevent the other major candidate, who was a representative of the military (i.e. mubarak), getting elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 i think weber was quite specific about calvinist work ethic and its effects. also, how come "protestant ethic" is "outdated" when it takes less than a minute of googling to find an academic article that points to numerous sources that state that it's still "a matter of debate" and then back weber's exact hypothesis with statistical analysis done in 2010 in switzerland with positive results ? to spare us the exchange of tldr and sr4 childish sarcasm the answer is most probably "it's intertwined" (weber did take this into account as opposed to marx, btw). but to delve into this interconnectedness is just beyond me at this point. BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT MAX WEBER !! Yes Weber was quite specific, and in being so specific, ignored the political and economic institutions which facilitated exploitation of the third world during colonial times. These institutions persisted throughout the centuries, perhaps giving an illusion of "the protestant work ethic". For the anti-islamists - I'm sitting in a class with a former CIA Kabul station head (graham fuller, you can wiki him), and even he's saying that decades of Western intervention and despotic rule are largely responsible for the awful state of some Islamic societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcofribas Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Walking home the other week, I passed a large group of fat ninjas coming out of an islamic centre. I'd been farting all the way home and as I passed I let out a long sonorous fart without even thinking. If that had been the local WI coming out of a church there's no way I would have done that. Am I a latent racist? were you wearing chinos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kakapo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Walking home the other week, I passed a large group of fat ninjas coming out of an islamic centre. I'd been farting all the way home and as I passed I let out a long sonorous fart without even thinking. If that had been the local WI coming out of a church there's no way I would have done that. Am I a latent racist? were you wearing chinos? Christ, don't put ideas into my head *sticks lilac chinos in trouser press, opens can of refried beans* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 i think weber was quite specific about calvinist work ethic and its effects. also, how come "protestant ethic" is "outdated" when it takes less than a minute of googling to find an academic article that points to numerous sources that state that it's still "a matter of debate" and then back weber's exact hypothesis with statistical analysis done in 2010 in switzerland with positive results ? to spare us the exchange of tldr and sr4 childish sarcasm the answer is most probably "it's intertwined" (weber did take this into account as opposed to marx, btw). but to delve into this interconnectedness is just beyond me at this point. BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT MAX WEBER !! Yes Weber was quite specific, and in being so specific, ignored the political and economic institutions which facilitated exploitation of the third world during colonial times. These institutions persisted throughout the centuries, perhaps giving an illusion of "the protestant work ethic". there's no contradiction. weber's "protestant ethic" can work within different systems and it can coexist with different institutions too. it's not about being rich, it's about frugality and reinvestment of the capital, regardless of the cumulative value of that capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Which of course explains the huge protestant population in South Korea, Japan, and China and their rapid success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I'm not suggesting that Muslims want to take over Western culture, but that they don't seem interested or active enough with publicly opposing Islamic extremism/Sharia Law which stalls the Israeli/Palestinian resolution and which puts doubts in Westerners and makes integration more difficult. is it your responsibility to apologize for the almost 1 million deaths that the government you pay tax money to caused in the last decade? No, it's not. So to say that members of a particular religion have the responsibility to scream from the rooftops to appease misguided american and western viewpoints for far less death that may or may not have been caused by an extremist faction of a particular religion is kind of absurd is the muslim brotherhood the new boogieman for pussyass americans e: zomg scary muslims :( they hate women and gays.. wait a minute thats p much the conservative christian view aswell, maybe we can get along after all What? This is about human oppression. In no way am I a supporter of any religion. Also are you calling Israel and the Jews pussies too? It's amazing to see people defend Islam yet criticize Christianity. but don't you see that pent up resentment towards the west for over a half a century of meddling and mass murder would cause probably more resentment than ideological religious differences? The fact that anyone would be attacking Islam or defending it in regards to the embassy protests is totally outside of the context of what's actually happening. I will passionately continue to defend an innocent person's right to live and to not have their country fucked with by a multi billion dollar technologically advanced army regardless of what country or 'evil' is happening there . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 which stalls the Israeli/Palestinian resolution and which puts doubts in Westerners and makes integration more difficult. you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. What would you choose to believe if you lived in say Pakistan and a drone killed 10 of your neighbors? Even if you weren't an 'islamic extremist' would you be more pissed off that your neighbors are dead for no reason or pissed off the other islamists for giving your religion a bad name to ignorant moronic americans? It really is the most bizarre argument in the world that you're making, one that i used to hear on fox news quite often. I like also how you conveniently omit that Israel's government, who treats Palestinians as second class citizens has a large role to play in the lack of a resolution. How would you feel if you were a Palestinian man in his 60s and you had to wait at a check point for a half hour then show your papers to a snot nosed 18 year old punk with a machine gun wearing a cartoonishly over-sized helmet every time you wanted to go to work? probably pretty pissed off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 50 percent is still very high in my opinion. true - and I could also queue a lot of alarming statistics about, I dunno, American Christians and their views on gays, non-Christians, the Arab-Israeli conflict, etc...but as mentioned earlier that's a different context and way different level altogether, even if the parallels are strikingly similar Advocating Sharia Law is a bit different than not wanting gay marriage as well. I just don't see the equivalency and I find trying to make them a wash a bit odd considering the reality of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The more i've actually looked at Sharia Law its pretty interesting and very different than the way the western media presents it. In Saudia Arabia Sharia Law allows people inside prison to have conjugal visits for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I'm not suggesting that Muslims want to take over Western culture, but that they don't seem interested or active enough with publicly opposing Islamic extremism/Sharia Law which stalls the Israeli/Palestinian resolution and which puts doubts in Westerners and makes integration more difficult. is it your responsibility to apologize for the almost 1 million deaths that the government you pay tax money to caused in the last decade? No, it's not. So to say that members of a particular religion have the responsibility to scream from the rooftops to appease misguided american and western viewpoints for far less death that may or may not have been caused by an extremist faction of a particular religion is kind of absurd is the muslim brotherhood the new boogieman for pussyass americans e: zomg scary muslims :( they hate women and gays.. wait a minute thats p much the conservative christian view aswell, maybe we can get along after all What? This is about human oppression. In no way am I a supporter of any religion. Also are you calling Israel and the Jews pussies too? It's amazing to see people defend Islam yet criticize Christianity. but don't you see that pent up resentment towards the west for over a half a century of meddling and mass murder would cause probably more resentment than ideological religious differences? The fact that anyone would be attacking Islam or defending it in regards to the embassy protests is totally outside of the context of what's actually happening. I will passionately continue to defend an innocent person's right to live and to not have their country fucked with by a multi billion dollar technologically advanced army regardless of what country or 'evil' is happening there . I would consider myself pretty outspoken against American foreign policy, since probably 2003. So while I am not directly responsible for it, I recognize I have a voice and can hopefully improve it through social media, discussion, voting third party, etc. I also speak out against the Catholic church and other institutions that I have no ties with because it is morally objectionable. Additionally if I were a Muslim American I would understand the unique position I am in, in these culturally divisive times, to advocate for Western ideals of individual freedom, women equal rights, and a two state solution. However when we look at what mosques in America are advocating and what polling indicates, American Muslims aren't supportive of Western ideals. And as I have demonstrated, one can be anti-American foreign policy but supportive of our greater equality and freedom of speech laws (ie not being killed over blasphemy because you didn't close shop and go marching/protesting). To further my point on this. 56 Islamic States think that sexual orientation and gender identity have “No legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.” On March 7th, 2012, a panel discussion is scheduled at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) about a November 11, 2011 UN report from the High Commissioner of Human Rights entitled:"Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity." The report was mandated in Resolution 17/19. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) believes the subject matter is out of bounds, and that such "controversial notions" have "no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument," and to believe otherwise is "misinterpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It wrote a letter to this effect to the HRC, saying that "historical, cultural and religious backgrounds" must take precedence. As such, "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC" and it will not accept considerations and recommendations of the panel. It may even stage a walkout at the event. -- The OIC picks and chooses human rights it will recognize, not to what conforms with the UDHR and international treaties arising from it, but instead with the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that says: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah. The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration. This view expressed in the Cairo Declaration, that Shari'ah takes precedence, seems to allow violations against minorities, women and non-believers by OIC states. Now it seeks to get rid of all criticism designed to show Islam in a negative light by criminalizing such "blashpemy." In other words, a religion will possess greater "human" rights than a human. Furthermore in the United States from a survey: Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. And remember its not about there being an equivalency with Christian and Islamic oppression in regards to women... I oppose oppression no matter what background/religion it falls under. Seeing people try to justify Sharia Law because of some kind of "religious right" seems like it's missing the point. Would anyone here want to live under Sharia Law? Idts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.