Islam, please control your nutcases!

Learn how to think.

[quote=“NeonNoodle”]
Yes, I guess there is a difference with the kind of beheadings. Dropping bombs is cowardly.[/quote]

And you attempting to equate the two is plain stupid. But what’s new?[/quote]

You know, there is a mosque in Taipei–why don’t you go down there and tell them how you feel? Wouldn’t that be more effective than just posting on Forumosa?

Learn how to think.
[/quote]
Well, coming from you this is a vacuous statement. Have you finished reading the Lancet repoort or are you always satisfied with arguing from a point of ignorance.

[quote=“NeonNoodle”]
Yes, I guess there is a difference with the kind of beheadings. Dropping bombs is cowardly.[/quote]

[quote=“Doctor Evil”]
And you attempting to equate the two is plain stupid. But what’s new?[/quote]

Well if you could think, you’d see that I am not equating the two.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“NeonNoodle”]Yes, I guess there is a difference with the kind of beheadings. Dropping bombs is cowardly.[/quote]What a disgusting comment, IMO -
Equating murdering terrorist with sanctioned military actions…Guess you weren’t at the Daniel Pearl Memorial, eh?
[/quote]
Why is my comment disgusting? Dropping bombs is cowardly whether the action is sanctioned or not. I know most of your arguments here are weak on logic, so be careful about inferring things from what I wrote.

Learn how to think.[/quote]

:roflmao: Exactly what I was thinking too. Thanks Doctor Evil.

Someone doesn’t seem to be able to get his head around why there is valid criticism of Islam.

[quote=“NeonNoodle”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“NeonNoodle”]Yes, I guess there is a difference with the kind of beheadings. Dropping bombs is cowardly.[/quote]What a disgusting comment, IMO -
Equating murdering terrorist with sanctioned military actions…Guess you weren’t at the Daniel Pearl Memorial, eh?
[/quote]Why is my comment disgusting? Dropping bombs is cowardly whether the action is sanctioned or not. I know most of your arguments here are weak on logic, so be careful about inferring things from what I wrote.[/quote]NeonNoodle -
No ‘inference’…direct responses. Care to change the context of any other posts?
You are equating terrorist actions with military actions. IMO, a disgusting and self-serving equation.
I know that Noam doesn’t allow you to respond when you have no response, so changing context is the only tool in your box. We understand that.
Whats your next defense - homicide bombers in pizza parlors…or on buses?

There are a lot of terrorist beheading videos available on the internet - a common feature is the shouting of “ALLAHU AKBAR!” as they slice through the throat of the bound and blindfolded victim. Care to offer a defense/justification of this?

[quote=“Mer”]Yet another example of some of the extreme stupidity that exists among the so-called leaders of the Islamic world. . .

[quote]Muslim cleric blames women for rape

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - Australia’s most prominent Islamic cleric vowed Thursday to stand strong against widespread outrage over his description of women who don’t wear head scarves as “uncovered meat” who invite rape. . . .[/quote][/quote]

No kidding! Hard to believe any idiot would be dumb enough to speak favorably about rape or associate with those who do. :fume:

[quote]Russian President Vladimir Putin’s international image has been tainted after it emerged he had let slip another of his infamous remarks – this time praising the president of Israel for alleged sex offences.

He turned out to be a strong man, raped 10 women,” the Russian president was quoted by Russian media as saying at a meeting in Moscow with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. “I never would have expected it of him. He has surprised us all, we all envy him!”[/quote]
taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … 2003332802

President Bush’s verdict on President Putin:

“I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul. We share a lot of values…”

  • Slovenia - June 16, 2001

MT, that was a masterful spin. And the segue into Bush…WOW! I need to sit down!

[quote=“NeonNoodle”]
Well, coming from you this is a vacuous statement. Have you finished reading the Lancet repoort or are you always satisfied with arguing from a point of ignorance.[/quote]

According to the Lancet, Iraq has suffered more casualties since 2003 than the UK and British Commonwealth (military and civilian) suffered in WWII.

I tend to avoid posting when under the influence of drugs. You might want to try doing the same.

OH dear… Oh dear… hahahahah Damn it Dr. Evil. I just read this exchange and I think I hurt myself from laughing so hard.

I owe you a drink the next time we run into each other.

[quote=“jdsmith”]MT, that was a masterful spin. And the segue into Bush…WOW! I need to sit down![/quote]…on the toilet.

What spin? MT is pointing out that not only Muslims hold these reprehensible attitudes.

Apparently quite a few Britons agree with the learned cleric;

[quote]Women ‘get blame for being raped’

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests.

The Amnesty International poll of 1,000 people also found over 25% believe she is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk[/quote]

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4453820.stm

Yes, but this particular thread is specifically about an Islamic Cleric in Australia who says if a female does not wear a hijab, or hide in the kitchen, and she gets raped, it is her fault. THAT IS POPPY COCK!!! If in Saudi Arabia, they want to have laws that dictate women are second class citizens, and in other predominantly muslim countries too - I guess they can - I won’t like it, but who am I to tell them what to do in their own countries? However, when in a western country like Australia or Britain - God damn it - show some respect for the law!! And fuck your stupid, assinine, medieval, ass-backward cultural traditions too! :fume:

I think dropping bombs on people makes killing easier to do, and more people are killed (more efficient). You don’t have to face your victim or see the terror in their eyes. But that doesn’t necessarily make it cowardly. In fact, if I had to go to war, and I had the technological advantage, I’d sure as hell use it. But MOST of the time we don’t go to war on a whim (at least you used to be able to say that). Up until the Iraq war, it seemed like every time the US was engaged in wars (okay, except the Indian Wars and maybe the Spanish-American War and maybe the Vietnam War) . . . shit nevermind . . . war sucks and it should be avoided if possible.

Cowards are folks who issue orders and then don’t do their homework which creates a whole new set of problems which leads to way more innocent people to be killed than would have occurred otherwise . . . .

Bodo

[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“NeonNoodle”][quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“NeonNoodle”]Yes, I guess there is a difference with the kind of beheadings. Dropping bombs is cowardly.[/quote]What a disgusting comment, IMO -
Equating murdering terrorist with sanctioned military actions…Guess you weren’t at the Daniel Pearl Memorial, eh?
[/quote]Why is my comment disgusting? Dropping bombs is cowardly whether the action is sanctioned or not. I know most of your arguments here are weak on logic, so be careful about inferring things from what I wrote.[/quote]NeonNoodle -
No ‘inference’…direct responses. Care to change the context of any other posts?
You are equating terrorist actions with military actions. IMO, a disgusting and self-serving equation.
I know that Noam doesn’t allow you to respond when you have no response, so changing context is the only tool in your box. We understand that.
Whats your next defense - homicide bombers in pizza parlors…or on buses?

There are a lot of terrorist beheading videos available on the internet - a common feature is the shouting of “ALLAHU AKBAR!” as they slice through the throat of the bound and blindfolded victim. Care to offer a defense/justification of this?[/quote]

I am not equating anything. I am comparing them.
So let us compare them:
Terrorist beheadings are evil, specific yet indiscriminant, but not cowardly. They are evil because it is murder. It is specific yet indiscriminant because the victim is known, but could be anybody. It is not cowardly because the killing is done directly.
Dropping bombs is evil, indiscriminant, and cowardly. It is evil because it is homicide. It is indiscriminant because there is no way to know who the victims will be. It is cowardly because on top of eveything else it is not done directly by hand.
But perhaps a beheaded victim of an aerial bombing would share your concern about not equating his or her beheading to beheadings committed by terrorists.

As for changing context, I said what I had to say about the cleric. Go give Dr. Evil shit about changing context not me because I was commenting on his comment. (I can comment on his comment, can I not?)

I had warned you about inferring things, but you didn’t listen and so now you are suggesting that I am defending terrorists. Care to pull up a direct quote of mine indicating that I in any way support or defend what terrorists do?

Finally, I offered you a chance in another thread to explain why you have contempt from Prof. Chomsky. You didn’t. So since you brought him up in this thread (and you criticize me for changing context) care to rexplain now?

[quote=“Bodo”]
I think dropping bombs on people makes killing easier to do, and more people are killed (more efficient). You don’t have to face your victim or see the terror in their eyes. But that doesn’t necessarily make it cowardly. In fact, if I had to go to war, and I had the technological advantage, I’d sure as hell use it. But MOST of the time we don’t go to war on a whim (at least you used to be able to say that). Up until the Iraq war, it seemed like every time the US was engaged in wars (okay, except the Indian Wars and maybe the Spanish-American War and maybe the Vietnam War) . . . shit nevermind . . . war sucks and it should be avoided if possible.

Cowards are folks who issue orders and then don’t do their homework which creates a whole new set of problems which leads to way more innocent people to be killed than would have occurred otherwise . . . .

Bodo[/quote]

Sure dropping bombs makes it easier to do and kills more people, but it is indiscriminant since it kills innocent people too. I do think it is cowardly primarily for these reasons.

[quote=“Doctor Evil”][quote=“NeonNoodle”]
Well, coming from you this is a vacuous statement. Have you finished reading the Lancet repoort or are you always satisfied with arguing from a point of ignorance.[/quote]

According to the Lancet, Iraq has suffered more casualties since 2003 than the UK and British Commonwealth (military and civilian) suffered in WWII.

I tend to avoid posting when under the influence of drugs. You might want to try doing the same.[/quote]

Still haven’t read, I gather. Well, maybe in the coming days you will have time.

[quote=“NeonNoodle”][quote=“Bodo”]
I think dropping bombs on people makes killing easier to do, and more people are killed (more efficient). You don’t have to face your victim or see the terror in their eyes. But that doesn’t necessarily make it cowardly. In fact, if I had to go to war, and I had the technological advantage, I’d sure as hell use it. But MOST of the time we don’t go to war on a whim (at least you used to be able to say that). Up until the Iraq war, it seemed like every time the US was engaged in wars (okay, except the Indian Wars and maybe the Spanish-American War and maybe the Vietnam War) . . . shit nevermind . . . war sucks and it should be avoided if possible.

Cowards are folks who issue orders and then don’t do their homework which creates a whole new set of problems which leads to way more innocent people to be killed than would have occurred otherwise . . . .

Bodo[/quote]

Sure dropping bombs makes it easier to do and kills more people, but it is indiscriminant since it kills innocent people too. I do think it is cowardly primarily for these reasons.[/quote]

Oh, and the twisted Muslims who cut the head off of Daniel Pearl, among others, that’s not cowardly? Killing in the name of your god? That’s not sick and twisted?
I’m assuming you’ll suggest next that America is killing in the name of Christianity in Iraq and elsewhere.

It’s amusing watching you try to weasel out of your earlier equating military action to terrorist beheadings. You’re getting nowhere. We all know what was written.

War isn’t pretty, but there sure as hell is a difference between sanctioned military action and terrorist murder. If you can’t recognize that, you’re just being obtuse.

This thread was supposed to be about what people think about this shit-for-brains Muslim cleric and the bullshit he preaches. You want to turn it into a ‘oh, America is evil too’ discussion right away, to try to take some heat off of these Islamic wackos? Go ahead. I hope it works out for you.

2 differences between dropping a bomb on an innocent family and dropping a gas canister into a shower block.

  1. The bombed people may have been having a peaceful family meal when they died and not known what hit them and the bomber had some chance of killing an enemy and was a bit unlucky.

  2. The gas dropper knew they were killing innocent families.

If I said to somebody okay, you’re going to drop this thing when you press this button okay. Result will be the following.

Family.
Dad. Your bomb will turn Dad into a fine mist that will disperse gradually downwind.
Mum. You’re going to be ripping off her right arm at the shoulder and right leg at the knee.
5 year old. A bit better off. Shrapnel will enter her head and cut off her language centre, she’ll never be able to communicate again. Her thoughts will stay locked inside for the rest of ther life.
9 year old. Dismembered and slowly dies with their intestines spread out in front of them. They try to pull the slippery coils back inside.

What I’m getting at is that the violence is desensitised for us. We are used to bombs and what bombs do. Everybody uses them so its okay.

Isn’t that an oxymoron? :smiley:

Veil outrage in Egypt! Yes ladies, you need not hide behind veils to appease radical nutjob clerics or prevent rape!

(sorry for the length, there’s a good list at the bottom of the article which outlines what’s going on with veils in various Muslim nations)

[quote]

October 31, 2006
In Egypt, renewed and fierce debate surrounds women and veils
By NADIA ABOU EL-MAGD

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The origin of the debate could not be more intimate: what a woman chooses to wear before she leaves home. But the increasing popularity of the full Muslim face veil has set off an emotional dispute in the Arab world over whether the covering is required by Islam for modesty or a dangerous sign of political extremism.

The debate is most intense in Egypt, the world’s largest Arab country, where two weeks ago a university banned women who wear the face veil - or niqab - from living in a hostel, and government-backed newspapers have launched a campaign against the veil. “The niqab vogue: an imported innovation, used by the political extremists,” read a recent banner on the pro-government Al Mussawar Weekly. “Our new battle is against the niqab,” added Mohammed Fatouh, a specialist on Islamic issues in another government-owned weekly, Rose el-Youssef.

Salama Ahmed Salama, a columnist in Egypt’s biggest government daily, Al-Ahram, was more blunt: “It expresses an extremist attitude. . . . Wearing the niqab is as outrageous as wearing a bathing suit or pyjamas to the office.”

On any given street in the capital, the face of one woman will be fully covered, with only her eyes peering through; nearby, another woman will cover her hair, leaving her face bare; still another will have her face and hair free of any covering.

The dispute highlights the growing wave of conservative Islamic practice across the Arab world - and among Muslims living in the West - and the intense struggle between secular governments and Islamic opposition groups. Head scarves fell out of favour among some urban Arab women in the 1920s and 1930s but began reappearing in the 1970s and 1980s. The evolution has been steady with more women covering their hair each year and more also wearing body cloaks.

But the biggest dispute has been over the niqab - a full facial veil that leaves only a slit for the eyes. It re-emerged in Egypt in the late 1980s and has since grown in popularity, both in the Arab world and among Arab Muslims in the West.

Former British foreign secretary Jack Straw said in early October that he asks women who visit his office to remove the veil so he can see their faces, and called it a disturbing sign of the divisions in British society. Aishah Azmi, a 24-year-old Muslim teaching assistant in northern England, was then suspended from her job for refusing to remove a black veil that left only her eyes visible.

In Egypt, the issue has simmered for years and caught new fire after Straw’s comments.

The president of Helwan University on the outskirts of Cairo banned students who wear the niqab from living at the university’s hostel, citing security reasons - and leading to small protests by students.

The head of the Islamic department of the women’s college at Al-Azhar University, Soad Saleh, was recently sued by a radical cleric and received death threats after she said she was “disgusted by women in niqab.”

In the West, traditional Muslim dress is seen as a refusal by Muslim immigrants to assimilate and accept Europe’s secular values. Two years ago, France banned head scarves and other religious symbols from public places, enraging many Muslim immigrants. Australia’s top Islamic cleric also recently sparked outrage when he said that women who do not dress modestly invite rape.

In the Arab world, the dispute centres on fears of growing Islamic extremism and concerns by secular governments, like Egypt’s, that they will lose ground to Islamic opposition groups.

Complicating the issue, there is no uniform religious opinion across the Muslim world about whether a head scarf - much less a face veil - is required. Some view various forms of head scarves and niqabs as signs of cultural or Islamic pride. Others, however, view face veils as indications of Islamic extremist political opposition.

But some who wear the face veil contend they do so for purely personal religious reasons.

“Believe me, we are normal human beings. But they deal with us like terrorists who are going to blow up everything,” said Ashgan, a woman wearing the veil at Helwan University, who would give only her first name during an interview with The Associated Press because she did not want to appear immodest.

She began wearing the niqab three years ago, and takes it off her face just before she enters the hostel’s gate, she said.

The top theological authority of Al-Azhar University, the highest seat of Sunni Muslim learning, said he accepted the Helwan University decision to keep women wearing niqabs from the hostel as long as Helwan officials do not require women to also remove their head scarves.

Clerics who believe women should be veiled refer to a verse in the Qur’an: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies.”

Many Islamic scholars do say that covering the hair is a religious duty, but others disagree and say the verse has other interpretations. As for the face veil, the majority of Islamic scholars say it is not required but is merely a custom that dates back to tribal, nomadic societies living in the Arabian desert before Islam began.

In Saudi Arabia, most women wear a face veil along with a head scarf and full black cloak - or face harassment by religious police.

Many Egyptian women took off their head scarves in the 1920s. But Egypt became more religious in the 1970s and women began wearing scarves again, even though the government does not encourage it.

Egypt keeps newscasters wearing head scarves off its TV stations; the president’s wife, Suzanne Mubarak, and most female officials wear neither head scarf nor face veil.

But the streets are full of veiled women. There are no accurate statistics on Egypt’s 75 million people, about 10 per cent of whom are Christian Copts who do not wear veils. But between 70 and 80 per cent of all Egyptian Muslim women are believed to wear a head scarf, according to most estimates.

A look at debate across Muslim world on wearing of veils, scarves

The wearing of veils and head scarves, and debates over the issue, across the Muslim world:

EGYPT: An estimated 70 to 80 per cent of Egyptian Muslim women wear a head scarf, and an increasing number also wear the face veil, or niqab, although the overall number wearing the niqab remains small. The government does not encourage the wearing of scarves or veils - worried they are a sign of Islamic extremist political opposition.

SAUDI ARABIA: Women are required to wear a full black cloak, called an abaya, and a head scarf. Saudi women are also expected to wear a face veil. They can be harassed by religious police, supported by the government, if they do not. Despite that, more women have stopped wearing the face veil in parts of the country.

IRAN: Women in this overwhelmingly Shiite Muslim nation wear a head scarf in public and many also wear a cloak called a chador. Laws since the 1979 Islamic revolution require women to cover their hair and wear clothes that hide their shape. Most women do not cover their faces.

IRAQ: Many women wear a head scarf and others wear a full face veil although secular women are often unveiled. Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a Shiite-dominated government, armed men have sometimes forced women to cover their heads or face punishment.

KUWAIT, LEBANON, SYRIA: The use of head scarves has grown in recent years.

JORDAN: Many women wear the head scarf, and conservative women are often required by their families to wear it.

TUNISIA: This North African country has banned head scarves in many public places since the 1980s - worried about Islamic opposition to its secular government. Despite the ban, the use of head scarves has risen in recent years.

MALAYSIA, INDONESIA: Head scarves have come into vogue as part of an Islamic revival

TURKEY: Head scarves are banned in all government offices and institutions, but there has been some unofficial relaxation of the ban under governments led by Islamic-oriented parties in recent years.[/quote]

Um, how much bravery does it take to hack the head off a man who is probably a civilian, has been kidnapped and terrorized, and is blindfolded and has his hands bound behind his back?

Help me out here. I don’t think the murderer would receive a medal for bravery in the militaries of most nations.

:s