Klumpen0815: ...
I also second your opinion about religious and political islam.
If the ridicule would be directed towards islam as a religion, we would see more silly comics about kneeling on a rug with a built-in compass 5 times per day all the time, but instead we see ridicule of the one thing islamists try to forbid us to depict or talk bad about (in our own countries!) by punishment of death regardless of actual law in the country where it's made, because shariah law is meant to be higher than anything else.
...
Fear is the Islamist's currency because that's all they have got going for themselves.
Violence isn't the only problem, the very act of intimidation is considered terrorism by e.g. U.S. law:
"Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"
Link:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition The intimidation and constant demand for special rights comes from a relatively small group of extremists among the Muslim community but it's working because Western European countries are bending over and playing along under the pretext of fake progressiveness and tolerance, sadly and tragically misplaced tolerance that is.
My primary issue here in the West isn't the ever demanding Islamists themselves but our cowardly governments and wannabe liberal voters who aren't actually liberal at all because they repeatedly spit in the face of core liberal values. They have one main goal and that is to never be called close minded racists just so they can feel good about themselves. Because feeling good about yourself sure feels good. That's really all they care about and it's tragic because ultimately everyone has to pay the consequences for the vanity of those people. The populations are slowly waking up from this mass neurosis and the politically correct mafia is in panic mode accordingly - as is apparent by them desperately throwing around their racist/nazi/xenophobia/islamophobia etc cards to such a laughable degree in such inappropriate situations that no sane person can (nor should) take it seriously anymore. Then they have the nerve to warn about the rise of far right wing politics and fearmongering, as if far left politics were in any way shape or form less dangerous. As for fearmongering, calling anyone who isn't far left a far right winger is fearmongering itself. But hey, hypocrisy is only bad when the other side does it, right...
babark: Nice! If you're going for the personal attacks (and yes, misrepresenting what I said to someone else to build a case that I'm a...what...desperate jew-hating liar? is a personal attack), why not go in fully?
I asked you two clear & simple non loaded questions over in the radicalism thread and you haven't answered these questions yet. Instead, you decided to play cute with a short reply in which you asked what I thought my and your position was.
Well, my position is quite clear but the problem is that you still haven't taken a clear position yet in regards to punishment against blasphemy and the condemnation/justification of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. You've evaded Klumpen's questions, and still not answered mine.
Despite all your deflections, I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt but as long as you don't take a clear position and dance around the bush, it's pretty impossible to have any kind of constructive discussion with you. I think I've made it clear that I'm in favor of a complete separation of religion and state, now it's your turn to say where you stand and I would very much appreciate it if you would answer my 2 questions from the other thread, I'll repeat them here so it's clear what I'm talking about:
1.) Do you, babark, think that there should be a law that prohibits people from drawing Muhammad, e.g. in a cartoon where he's naked and gets sodomized by an elephant god or whoever?
2.) Do you think the two brothers who shot up the Charlie Hebdo office and its staff acted in any way, shape or form justifiably?
I didn't know about the Muhammad sex game when I asked this question 11 days ago, otherwise I would have said sheep/goat/pig instead of elephant god but that really is a detail, this is about basic principles.
My questions aren't loaded especially if you were here with me but I do realize that you live in a country where blasphemy laws are strict and punishment can go all the way up to and including the death penalty for blasphemy. This means that even if we could somehow find common ground, you are legally prohibited from publicly agreeing with me in any way regarding blasphemy. I mostly feel genuine pity for you that you live in a place where blasphemy laws are so retarded and severe and realize that I'm basically expecting you to commit a crime - unless your opinion is in tune with the laws of your land in which case you would be an Islamist and I would understandably consider it a waste of time to have any further discussion with you involving the topics at hand and would rather give my attention to reformist Muslims who strive to have a positive impact on their community for the benefit of everyone.
There is however no excuse for you not to answer the second question and condemn the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo, the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the attacks (in a sort of half-assed general way) so there's no reason why you can't do it, too. I'm waiting for your answer.
babark: I was neither attacking jews, nor christians, I was simply making the same argument Crewdroog is, that claims that Islam is somehow uniquely better suited as a motivation towards violence
are not backed up by the facts And it was not a "specific year", it was over the course of the time the data was collected (from the mid-80s to a couple years ago, whenever the report was written). And are you accusing the FBI of being anti-semitic, or was that another dig at me?
Don't try to hide behind crewdroog, she made a point very different from yours. Nice try though.
Actually, the FBI statistic you googled (because you were too lazy/incapable to do more in-depth research) doesn't support your argument, at all. It only counts the number of terror attacks on US soil, a country with only 0,8% Muslims among its population and therefor not representative of the global situation, at all. Included in this statistic were vandalism and destruction of property without injuries or deaths. If you count the total number of injuries and deaths from all the Jewish terror attacks and compare them to the number of injuries and deaths resulting from Muslim terror attacks, you'll wish you had never pulled up this statistic. Jewish terror attacks during that time period (1980-2005) resulted in 3 deaths and 33 injured. While the number of Jewish terror attacks was indeed higher than the number of Muslim terror attacks, the first Muslim terror attack alone resulted in 6 dead and 1042 injured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing And that's not even including the 2972 dead from the 9/11 WTC attack, an attack for which Al-Qa’ida takes credit. If you're a reader of loonwatch & Konsorten you might dispute that and draw the conspiracy card on that one but hey, you yourself pulled up that FBI statistic and it lists 9/11 as a Muslim terror attack so if we include all the victims from that attack, you astronomically lose this argument. And even if we wouldn't include 9/11 you still lose out, simplest math.
Here is the link to the full FBI article, it appears you only read the loonwatch page and not the actual source it links to:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum
