The debate over these cartoons of Muhammad is ridiculous.

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: OrByte
Actually the reaction isn't all that surprising. As for the newspaper, I can't blame them for doing something that they have every right in the world to do. Hell I can't even say I don't like the comics because I do, I think it makes its point in trying to be funny. I like the virgins comic so much it is in my sig now!

So what if the Danish media paper is biased, they can be. There is nothing wrong with that. They might need a lesson on sensitivity though, but thats all.

Oh yeah, like a premier newspaper here have the right to draw a monkey jumping up and down on a car on fire after LA riot? Guess that's alrite too?

My god, how can I make it simple so people understand freedom of speech is not limitless. There is a limit to it, and the most important thing is to not distrub the peace. What the Danish Newspaper did was wrong, plain and simple. The reaction following the cartoon is simply expected, and that IS THE RESULT OF THE CARTOON. Not the other way around. If you want to find someone to blame for this mess, blame the one that started the fire.

I can't speak for countries other than the USA, but here in the USA, when we are at our best, we value freedom much higher than order. We have slipped some under the current administration, which uses fear as a political tool, and to compromise our freedom.

But I hope the day never comes when America takes the position you advocate, of compromising our own principals out of a sense of fear.

Is wanting religious/ethnic harmony compromising principals out of fear?
Is respecting other human being and their beliefs a violation of your freedom?

Well guess what the State Department of the United States said about this incident:

In its first comment on the furore, the State Department said: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims."

Answering a reporter's question, its spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable."

 

[Acanthus]

What i dont understand is how most of the world doesnt happen to notice the conflict that is "who has the better imaginary friend".

 

[kush]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link to funny pic



I just thought it was funny.

FTW

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Perhaps this could serve as a wake up call to the world:

Faith-based religious-mystical beliefs are irrational and can often lead to mass lunacy and violence. Abandon irrationality and embrace reason and adopt a rational atheist philosophy.

Do you think that any of these protesters ever seriously questioned the existence of a diety, or was the belief just hammered into them from birth? Could they even question the belief and remain free from violence? I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the protesters are sheep.

 

[DidlySquat]

true dat, also most of there protests are organized by oppressive governments which seize the opportunity to divert the disconetent public towards a perceived outside enemy or threat, and away from the local problems which are mostly caused ny the unfair, oppressive regime. It also help them feel united and aligned with their corruupt governments because they are together in this affair against this "deliberate" provocation by the west "as a whole".

This violence is just a symptom of the sickness of poverty and desparation that exists in much of the Islamic world. It hurts to face the truth doesn't it ?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link to funny pic



I just thought it was funny.

It was photoshopped too

Text

I watched Chris Rocks dvd "Never Scared" last night, Gawd that was funny

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
link to funny pic



I just thought it was funny.

that pretty much sums it up. Islam is not violent, however a lot of people who practice it are.

Buwahahaha. That's always my favorite description to hear about Islam... "It's not a violent religion, but the people that practice it are violent."

 

[piasabird]

Some Muslims just want to kill anyone who is not a muslim. Most European countries are afraid to tell their people the truth.

 

[BigLouis]

Originally posted by: slash196
I seem to be the only one who knows this, so it's time for a little lesson in Islam. It is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN to depict the Prophet in ANY WAY, be it cartoon, painting, what have you. To do so is an insult to all of Islam, and has been interpreted as such. I thought this was fairly common knowledge but apperantly it isn't.

To make an analogy, it would be like me pooping on a picture of Jesus on national television. This whole country would go (somewhat justifiably) completely insane. People would be calling for my blood. Exact same thing. The newspaper should have known this and should issue an apology for insulting, deliberately, more than a billion people. End of freaking story.

I'm glad that you're the spokesperson for a billion and more people.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: OrByte
Actually the reaction isn't all that surprising. As for the newspaper, I can't blame them for doing something that they have every right in the world to do. Hell I can't even say I don't like the comics because I do, I think it makes its point in trying to be funny. I like the virgins comic so much it is in my sig now!

So what if the Danish media paper is biased, they can be. There is nothing wrong with that. They might need a lesson on sensitivity though, but thats all.

Oh yeah, like a premier newspaper here have the right to draw a monkey jumping up and down on a car on fire after LA riot? Guess that's alrite too?

My god, how can I make it simple so people understand freedom of speech is not limitless. There is a limit to it, and the most important thing is to not distrub the peace. What the Danish Newspaper did was wrong, plain and simple. The reaction following the cartoon is simply expected, and that IS THE RESULT OF THE CARTOON. Not the other way around. If you want to find someone to blame for this mess, blame the one that started the fire.

I can't speak for countries other than the USA, but here in the USA, when we are at our best, we value freedom much higher than order. We have slipped some under the current administration, which uses fear as a political tool, and to compromise our freedom.

But I hope the day never comes when America takes the position you advocate, of compromising our own principals out of a sense of fear.

Is wanting religious/ethnic harmony compromising principals out of fear?
Is respecting other human being and their beliefs a violation of your freedom?

Well guess what the State Department of the United States said about this incident:

In its first comment on the furore, the State Department said: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims."

Answering a reporter's question, its spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable."

ugh, sheltering or appeasing the extremists ideas is not a good way to ensure harmony, it only emboldens them.

the state department says what it says to be pragmatic considering its current position in the middle east. its not their fight. more the calming an irrational child then words of truth.

anyways, offensive cartoons? they love em in the islamic world http://www.honestreporting.com/articles...84734/critiques/Offensive_Cartoons.asp

doesn't the danish flag being burned have a cross on it? hm?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: nCred
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/syria.cartoon.ap/index.html

The danish embassy in Syria set on fire.

Fckin idiots, what the hell does the danish embassy have to do with this, they are making idiots out of themselves, what a shame, I hope they get punished hard by the west for this, they deserve it, not a single Arabic emnbassy was attacked in Europe, motherf*ckers.

Well what a shock to you. This is exactly the kind of thing I expected but you were all high and mighty. Your high levels of smartness.

As has been said, the majority of muslims want no part of this, yet who among them is saying "Stop this"? We still hear their apologists.

Get this message. Burning and killing and threatening to kill? You bet I would love a case of that toilet paper. I insult, they burn.

BTW go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and walk down the street with a beer and see what happens. Why don't they respect my rights? Waaa.

Well it's their country dammit, and if I go there I had better understand that I am expected to behave in certain ways. If not I had better get out.

What about these people and others like them who were imprisoned by an Islamic government?

Make that two cases of toilet paper for me. All are expected to play by their rules. Well if they don't like it, they can protest. I don't care. When they start firebombing embassies, they have surrendered THEIR rights.

Now I don't WANT violence against muslims in Europe, but it is in the nature of people to push back when they are attacked. The so called wimps of France and elsewhere WILL get fed up, and if the muslim community does not get control of the more extreme elements, all of them will suffer. It isn't if, but when.

Oh hey, there is this little piece I found in the same link:

In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono denounced the cartoons as insensitive.

But "as religious people, we should accept the apology extended by the Danish government," he added.

I guess it's just convienent for you people to miss out this part that the president of the largest Muslim nation didn't support violence, and surprise, accepted the apology from Danish government.

wow how gracious, accepting an apology that should never be given in the first place.

perhaps indonesia would do better to spend their time protecting their religious minorities from things far worse than cartoons. for instance stopping the beheadings of christian school girls. and indonesia is the one held up as a progressive islamic countryhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/7/90207.shtml
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1646661,00.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/12505
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-duin010202.shtml
i mean how dare people portray islam as anything but peaceful

 

[theeedude]

Newspapers have right to print these cartoons, and muslims have a right to protest. What they don't have the right to do is kill and burn embassies. That just reinforces what those cartoons are trying to say.

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl
orrrrrrrrrrrrr....

These peace-loving muslims can let Admiral Allah Akbar do his job with the infidels when it's their time. By acting like uncivilized beasts, they are proving the point of some of those toons.

If Allah is angry over these depictions, wouldn't you think he'd take care of the perpetrators? Why must these buffoons deal out justice and have revenge?

This whole thing is beyond retarded.

where are we when allah takes care of everything? there must be ppl who r taking care of wut allah says! human vs human: FAIR, human vs allah: NOT FAIR!

 

[Alaa]

Originally posted by: thraashman
I'd equate the caricatures more to wiping your butt with the shroud of Turin in front of a room full of believers. But that's just how I see it. It's offensive to them, it may seem ridiculous to someone who doesn't understand the religion, but it just is. Also Muslims don't believe Allah punishes his enemies, they believe it's their job to punish the enemies of Allah.

I accidentally rear-ended a Muslim once, nicest person I've ever been in an accident with.

True!

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Alaa

Originally posted by: Dedpuhl
orrrrrrrrrrrrr....

These peace-loving muslims can let Admiral Allah Akbar do his job with the infidels when it's their time. By acting like uncivilized beasts, they are proving the point of some of those toons.

If Allah is angry over these depictions, wouldn't you think he'd take care of the perpetrators? Why must these buffoons deal out justice and have revenge?

This whole thing is beyond retarded.

where are we when allah takes care of everything? there must be ppl who r taking care of wut allah says! human vs human: FAIR, human vs allah: NOT FAIR!

Ok, then don't blame Allah when you reap what you've sewn.

 

[Drift3r]

I look at like this...It's like abortion. I am not a Christian and I am for anyone who doesn't have any religous objections to be able to get a abortion. Yet the dumb a$$ fundies here in this country like to force their point of view onto people via any means neccesary be it legal or not. You don't like abortions ? Fine don't freaking get one. You don't like graven images of your religous leader ? Fine don't make one. Just don't even think of telling me what I can and cannot do because I don't believe in your silly fairy tales.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Newspapers have right to print these cartoons, and muslims have a right to protest. What they don't have the right to do is kill and burn embassies. That just reinforces what those cartoons are trying to say.

Either the papers have the legal right to print the cartoons or not is not the dispute, now is that legal right biased ? Absolutely, considering that they can't print the same stuff some other category of people which I won't mention (because it's not the topic here).

But the rest of your argument is completely valid IMO, trust me the majority Muslims do not agree with what happened till now (Death threats, burning of embassies...etc), but the question which presents itself is :

If there are Muslims out there (and a lot of them) that do not agree with what the others out there are doing, then why aren't we hearing much form them (i.e counter-protests...etc) ?
Well a lot of those Muslims, and me included find ourselves in a very difficult position, where we need to defend those who without any reason are stereotyping all of us and insulting us deeply with the clear intention of causing instability to everyone and inciting hate towards us + encouraging others to do the same thing, on the other hand we need to stop those of our religion who are pushing things beyond their legal and even religious boundaries, and in an ironic way helping people that print those cartoons to prove their point !

It's not an easy situation, and I know that for sure especially after the last period and more sepcifically here on P&N, where those who are allegedly defending the "freedom-of press" are actually a majority of people with hidden political agendas, and really think that Muslims, all of the Muslims in the world are terrorists (don't believe me read the threads) I tried to reason wit those people but they really didn't want to listen (I am not sure if anyone out there really wants to listen!).

It really didn't help, and I didn't see much if any extending their hands towards dialog with the Muslims who don't agree that violence is the solution, instead , almost everybody in here are just enjoying their free ride on the "fvck Islam" band-wagon, which unfortunately is causing more and more of the neutral Muslims to get even more shocked and a good number of them, unfortunatley find themselves agreeing with the other side's methods, mainly due to their denial of the cartoons and what is intended behind that.

Muhammad is a key figure in Islam, any attack on him is classified as an attack on Muslims, especially during the current fragile political situation, where Muslims have nothing left to hang on to but their faith!
So it's really as ironic as it gets.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: nCred
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/04/syria.cartoon.ap/index.html

The danish embassy in Syria set on fire.

Fckin idiots, what the hell does the danish embassy have to do with this, they are making idiots out of themselves, what a shame, I hope they get punished hard by the west for this, they deserve it, not a single Arabic emnbassy was attacked in Europe, motherf*ckers.

Well what a shock to you. This is exactly the kind of thing I expected but you were all high and mighty. Your high levels of smartness.

As has been said, the majority of muslims want no part of this, yet who among them is saying "Stop this"? We still hear their apologists.

Get this message. Burning and killing and threatening to kill? You bet I would love a case of that toilet paper. I insult, they burn.

BTW go to Saudi Arabia or Iran and walk down the street with a beer and see what happens. Why don't they respect my rights? Waaa.

Well it's their country dammit, and if I go there I had better understand that I am expected to behave in certain ways. If not I had better get out.

What about these people and others like them who were imprisoned by an Islamic government?

Make that two cases of toilet paper for me. All are expected to play by their rules. Well if they don't like it, they can protest. I don't care. When they start firebombing embassies, they have surrendered THEIR rights.

Now I don't WANT violence against muslims in Europe, but it is in the nature of people to push back when they are attacked. The so called wimps of France and elsewhere WILL get fed up, and if the muslim community does not get control of the more extreme elements, all of them will suffer. It isn't if, but when.

Oh hey, there is this little piece I found in the same link:

In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono denounced the cartoons as insensitive.

But "as religious people, we should accept the apology extended by the Danish government," he added.

I guess it's just convienent for you people to miss out this part that the president of the largest Muslim nation didn't support violence, and surprise, accepted the apology from Danish government.

wow how gracious, accepting an apology that should never be given in the first place.

perhaps indonesia would do better to spend their time protecting their religious minorities from things far worse than cartoons. for instance stopping the beheadings of christian school girls. and indonesia is the one held up as a progressive islamic countryhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/7/90207.shtml
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1646661,00.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/12505
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-duin010202.shtml
i mean how dare people portray islam as anything but peaceful

Heh yeah pull a few links and you think you know the entire nation....you want me to pull out some thing American has done too? Ever heard of James Byrd, Jr? Do you want me to keep on going? Do you see me saying America is race hating White superimist country? No because I know better.

But appearantly someone don't know better about Indonesia.

 

[kush]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush
So many trolls, so little time ...

To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.

In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'

The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!

The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.

Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.

Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.

Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.

But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.

Kinda like a KKK saying he loves diversity and all human kind eh?

Not quite, but if you require factual support for the "inbred" comment, here it is. Support for violent and lunatic fringe ... well, it would be superfluous wouldn't it? (by the way just cause i quote the american conservative, i'm no where near that side of the table.)

Just Steve Sailer "Cousin Marriage Conundrum" - The American Conservative,
Jan. 13, 2003, pp. 20-22

"Many prominent neoconservatives are calling on America not only to conquer Iraq (and perhaps more Muslim nations after that), but also to rebuild Iraqi society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the Middle East. Yet, Americans know so little about the Middle East that few of us are even aware of one of one of the building blocks of Arab Muslim cultures -- cousin marriage. Not surprisingly, we are almost utterly innocent of any understanding of how much the high degree of inbreeding in Iraq could interfere with our nation building ambitions.

In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously" married. The most prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is that of Saddam Hussein and his first wife Sajida.

By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges, inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult."

 

[Rommels]

That was in the past. Sure there is some race hating White superimist left, there will always be a few.
Whats going on in the Islamic world though is on a huge scale when you just look at the numbers...
1% or .5% is a huge number when it is from 1.2 Billion.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: OrByte
Actually the reaction isn't all that surprising. As for the newspaper, I can't blame them for doing something that they have every right in the world to do. Hell I can't even say I don't like the comics because I do, I think it makes its point in trying to be funny. I like the virgins comic so much it is in my sig now!

So what if the Danish media paper is biased, they can be. There is nothing wrong with that. They might need a lesson on sensitivity though, but thats all.

Oh yeah, like a premier newspaper here have the right to draw a monkey jumping up and down on a car on fire after LA riot? Guess that's alrite too?

My god, how can I make it simple so people understand freedom of speech is not limitless. There is a limit to it, and the most important thing is to not distrub the peace. What the Danish Newspaper did was wrong, plain and simple. The reaction following the cartoon is simply expected, and that IS THE RESULT OF THE CARTOON. Not the other way around. If you want to find someone to blame for this mess, blame the one that started the fire.

I can't speak for countries other than the USA, but here in the USA, when we are at our best, we value freedom much higher than order. We have slipped some under the current administration, which uses fear as a political tool, and to compromise our freedom.

But I hope the day never comes when America takes the position you advocate, of compromising our own principals out of a sense of fear.

Is wanting religious/ethnic harmony compromising principals out of fear?
Is respecting other human being and their beliefs a violation of your freedom?

Well guess what the State Department of the United States said about this incident:

In its first comment on the furore, the State Department said: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims."

Answering a reporter's question, its spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable."

I'm not sure what you mean by harmony between religions, but I know I don't want the government mandating it.

I respect the rights of people to have their own beliefs, as long as they don't infringe on other's rights. Respecting someone's right to believe something isn't the same as respecting the belief though. For example, I do not respect the belief of the Catholic church that women cannot be priests.

And your comments from the State Dept are part of what I was saying about this administration. Everything you quoted is fine, until the "not acceptable" part, which isn't appropriate coming from a government agency that is not above the Constitution.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: kush

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush
So many trolls, so little time ...

To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.

In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'

The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!

The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.

Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.

Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.

Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.

But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.

Kinda like a KKK saying he loves diversity and all human kind eh?

Not quite, but if you require factual support for the "inbred" comment, here it is. Support for violent and lunatic fringe ... well, it would be superfluous wouldn't it? (by the way just cause i quote the american conservative, i'm no where near that side of the table.)

Just Steve Sailer "Cousin Marriage Conundrum" - The American Conservative,
Jan. 13, 2003, pp. 20-22

"Many prominent neoconservatives are calling on America not only to conquer Iraq (and perhaps more Muslim nations after that), but also to rebuild Iraqi society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the Middle East. Yet, Americans know so little about the Middle East that few of us are even aware of one of one of the building blocks of Arab Muslim cultures -- cousin marriage. Not surprisingly, we are almost utterly innocent of any understanding of how much the high degree of inbreeding in Iraq could interfere with our nation building ambitions.

In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously" married. The most prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is that of Saddam Hussein and his first wife Sajida.

By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges, inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult."

LOL, so if a neocon said something, it must be true. You said you are no where near that side of the table, so why do you quote garbage from them?

 

[kush]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush
So many trolls, so little time ...

To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.

In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'

The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!

The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.

Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.

Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.

Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.

But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.

Kinda like a KKK saying he loves diversity and all human kind eh?

Not quite, but if you require factual support for the "inbred" comment, here it is. Support for violent and lunatic fringe ... well, it would be superfluous wouldn't it? (by the way just cause i quote the american conservative, i'm no where near that side of the table.)

Just Steve Sailer "Cousin Marriage Conundrum" - The American Conservative,
Jan. 13, 2003, pp. 20-22

"Many prominent neoconservatives are calling on America not only to conquer Iraq (and perhaps more Muslim nations after that), but also to rebuild Iraqi society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the Middle East. Yet, Americans know so little about the Middle East that few of us are even aware of one of one of the building blocks of Arab Muslim cultures -- cousin marriage. Not surprisingly, we are almost utterly innocent of any understanding of how much the high degree of inbreeding in Iraq could interfere with our nation building ambitions.

In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously" married. The most prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is that of Saddam Hussein and his first wife Sajida.

By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges, inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult."

LOL, so if a neocon said something, it must be true. You said you are no where near that side of the table, so why do you quote garbage from them?

mainly cause it was more colorful than the scientific one, but here is the recognized authority


http://www.consang.net/summary.html

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush
So many trolls, so little time ...

To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.

In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'

The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!

The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.

Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.

Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.

Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.

But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.

Kinda like a KKK saying he loves diversity and all human kind eh?

Not quite, but if you require factual support for the "inbred" comment, here it is. Support for violent and lunatic fringe ... well, it would be superfluous wouldn't it? (by the way just cause i quote the american conservative, i'm no where near that side of the table.)

Just Steve Sailer "Cousin Marriage Conundrum" - The American Conservative,
Jan. 13, 2003, pp. 20-22

"Many prominent neoconservatives are calling on America not only to conquer Iraq (and perhaps more Muslim nations after that), but also to rebuild Iraqi society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the Middle East. Yet, Americans know so little about the Middle East that few of us are even aware of one of one of the building blocks of Arab Muslim cultures -- cousin marriage. Not surprisingly, we are almost utterly innocent of any understanding of how much the high degree of inbreeding in Iraq could interfere with our nation building ambitions.

In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously" married. The most prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is that of Saddam Hussein and his first wife Sajida.

By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges, inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult."

LOL, so if a neocon said something, it must be true. You said you are no where near that side of the table, so why do you quote garbage from them?

Are all these people quoting garbage too?

Time to ban marriages between cousins?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19247

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...icine/Genetics/?view=usa&ci=0195093054


If you are really interested research this in medical journals in which they show alot more details minus the political rhetoric.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: kush
So many trolls, so little time ...

To be fair: it is not in the Quran teachings to kill people. Islam established complete equality between Muslims and non - Muslims, believing people should enjoy the freedom of practicing any faith or religion they choose without interference or discrimination and that they should be able to freely express their opinions.

In fact, Mohamed said 'One who hurts a non - Muslim, he hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts God.'

The problem with so many of these inbred lunatics (yea the 1.2 billion) is that they misinterpret their own religious doctrine!

The dichotomies and deviations started a long time ago. Example: Islam is divided into Sunni and Shiites who can't agree on a common prophet. Sunnis follow Mohammed, while Shiites follow his cousin.

Anyone who says its our fault for inciting violence is actually making my argument. You are saying that we ought not provoke them, and if we do its our fault.

Kind of like not poking orangutangs with a stick or baiting aligators. Many of the 1.2billion are inbred, violent, lunatic fringe people.

Therefore, yes, i agree we should not poke them with a stick. We ought to systematically eradicate this disease. I say this with full knowledge that i am propagating violence and thus in many ways guilty of what they are doing.

But you know what, I'm well versed in religion, philosophy, history and politics, thus I don't speak out of ignorance. i speak out of frustration. enough is enough.

Kinda like a KKK saying he loves diversity and all human kind eh?

Not quite, but if you require factual support for the "inbred" comment, here it is. Support for violent and lunatic fringe ... well, it would be superfluous wouldn't it? (by the way just cause i quote the american conservative, i'm no where near that side of the table.)

Just Steve Sailer "Cousin Marriage Conundrum" - The American Conservative,
Jan. 13, 2003, pp. 20-22

"Many prominent neoconservatives are calling on America not only to conquer Iraq (and perhaps more Muslim nations after that), but also to rebuild Iraqi society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the Middle East. Yet, Americans know so little about the Middle East that few of us are even aware of one of one of the building blocks of Arab Muslim cultures -- cousin marriage. Not surprisingly, we are almost utterly innocent of any understanding of how much the high degree of inbreeding in Iraq could interfere with our nation building ambitions.

In Iraq, as in much of the region, nearly half of all married couples are first or second cousins to each other. A 1986 study of 4,500 married hospital patients and staff in Baghdad found that 46% were wed to a first or second cousin, while a smaller 1989 survey found 53% were "consanguineously" married. The most prominent example of an Iraqi first cousin marriage is that of Saddam Hussein and his first wife Sajida.

By fostering intense family loyalties and strong nepotistic urges, inbreeding makes the development of civil society more difficult."

LOL, so if a neocon said something, it must be true. You said you are no where near that side of the table, so why do you quote garbage from them?

Are all these people quoting garbage too?

Time to ban marriages between cousins?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19247

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...icine/Genetics/?view=usa&ci=0195093054


If you are really interested research this in medical journals in which they show alot more details minus the political rhetoric.

Have you kids ever consider that's a local phenomenon, instead of something common to the "Muslim"? When are you going to get not all Muslim are in the Arab world. Go check it out if marrying first cousin is also a common thing in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia.

Guess that's not surprising given that you think all Muslim are exactly the same bomb carrying violent killers.