What do you say about this?

[mapuc]

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

[scandium]

Originally Posted by mapuc

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

I say there's a perfectly good thread on this already without starting yet another boring anti-Islam thread.

[TteFAboB]

If you burn the holy Quran in Dernmark, the holy Quran will burn Denmark.

Well, not really, if the Danish Mohammed cartoons are any hint, things will burn, but not in Denmark.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by mapuc

In Denmark it's allowed to burn the danish flag and the holy bible.

But it's not allowed to burn the holy Quran

Markus

Are they out of firewood? JK.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by scandium

I say there's a perfectly good thread on this already without starting yet another boring anti-Islam thread.

I am bored with all this Islam stuff, there is more to life than this boring stuff. :p

[Skybird]

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...2029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.

[scandium]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Burning books - very well, since they all necessarily are misleading concepts. So - what do you say to this, then:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatc...2029print.html

Hysteria in a comedy show is funny. Hysteria in reality is just hysteria.

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. That article is about as meaningful as this random sample from Google news:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...ef3ebd&k=70588

"CALGARY - A 12-year-old girl accused of murdering three members of a Medicine Hat, Alta., family will not have to undergo a psychiatric assessment at the present time, a provincial court judge ruled Wednesday."

But as we all know only Muslim youths commit acts of violence (except for this Calgary youth who is not Muslim and who is accused of 3 murders), and violence only occurs in places like Niger (and Canada).

Not to say Niger doesn't have plenty of problems (obviously it does), or to suggest that Muslims don't commit violence (obviously some do), only to point out how worthless random Jihadwatch articles are.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria.

No. JihadWatch promotes awareness.

To promote hysteria, maybe someone needs to institutionalize it.

You still don't get it. It's as if the Dhimmi Watch sidebar's text was written with you in mind:

• Why Dhimmi Watch?
  
  Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
  
  The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.
  
  But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.
  
  More...

[TteFAboB]

Which is exactly what Jihadwatch promotes - hysteria. That article is about as meaningful as this random sample from Google news:

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know, but to each his own.

If we followed scandium, we wouldn't study nor Islam nor violence nor Niger nor Canada, we wouldn't know anything and wouldn't be able to do anything nor in Niger nor in Canada. Is the real worthless thing really random Jihadwatch "articles"?

I will remove the relativism:

The news in Niger has a victim being stoned to death by a mob for distributing leaflets. She was arrested for her letter because in Niger there is no freedom of expression or religion, and the angry mob invaded the police station where she was taken to and killed her inside it, meaning the state of Niger can't protect its own citizens. Nobody will be punished for this crime, while it is a crime in Niger's law, it is not in Sharia, and while the letter was not a crime in Niger's law, it was in Sharia.

The Calgary news has two Female murderers, one 23 years old and the other 12, they are accused of murdering 3, not with stones or sharp pieces of iron, they did not invade a police station and neither does a pair constitute a mob. Likewise, no angry mob attempted to invade the police station or Jail or court where they were to kill them. There is no conflict of law. No religion is even mentioned.

The only worthless thing here is the continous attempt to shut the curtains, stop the debate, cease discussion, with relativism, pointing similar cases which have nothing to do with the matter at hand. The only significance a murder in Calgary has with a discussion about Islam is what is its place in Islamic law?

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

No. JihadWatch promotes awareness.

To promote hysteria, maybe someone needs to institutionalize it.

You still don't get it. It's as if the Dhimmi Watch sidebar's text was written with you in mind:

• Why Dhimmi Watch?
  
  Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.
  
  The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today.
  
  But in this era of global terrorism this silence and distortion has become deadly. Therefore Dhimmi Watch seeks to bring public attention to the plight of the dhimmis, and by doing so, to bring them justice.
  
  More...

This is the part I have trouble with: This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

That's the stuff that tinfoil hats are made of. As to the article on the attempt to create a Muslim world court, I found this commentary from the Jijhadwatch authors amusing:

But what is noteworthy, alongside the proposal of a world Islamic court, is the extent to which responsibility is displaced: Not only are Western nations to blame for the problems of the Muslim world, but now the entire UN is just a tool of the West. And the IMF. And the World Bank.

Its amusing because the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank were created by the West and there is no question who disportionately benefits. Consider the UN: who holds veto power? The US, Russia, Germany, France and the UK - what's that if its not the West AL? And what have those vetoes been used for? Well in the US (to quote Wiki): "The USA first used the veto power in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and first issued a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution censuring Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel (see Negroponte doctrine). This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council." But given the ongoing hostility between various Muslim countries and Israel we can ignore this, since it doesn't fit with the Jihadwatch slant that there might be even an ounce of legitimacy in their claims .

And of the 3 the UN is the most "impartial" (such as it is) and universally represented, so that says little for the IMF and World Bank. I don't know... maybe I wouldn't mind Jihadwatch if they weren't so hysterical and stupidly (like black is white stupid) slanted in their potrayal of things from the potentially meaningful to the trite and meaningless - the latter seeming to be their specialty.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by scandium

This is the part I have trouble with: This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

That's the stuff that tinfoil hats are made of.

No. That's the stuff that Islam preaches - and has for 1400 years - as Islam's ultimate goal.

Maybe you're wearing tin-foil shades.

As to the article on the attempt to create a Muslim world court, I found this commentary from the Jijhadwatch authors amusing:

But what is noteworthy, alongside the proposal of a world Islamic court, is the extent to which responsibility is displaced: Not only are Western nations to blame for the problems of the Muslim world, but now the entire UN is just a tool of the West. And the IMF. And the World Bank.

Its amusing because the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank were created by the West and there is no question who disportionately benefits. Consider the UN: who holds veto power? The US, Russia, Germany, France and the UK - what's that if its not the West AL?

Who owns the oil? How large is that Islamic bloc in the UN? Who are you fooling?

And what have those vetoes been used for? Well in the US (to quote Wiki): "The USA first used the veto power in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and first issued a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution censuring Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel (see Negroponte doctrine). This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council."

Yep. The Muslims just can't get their way. Tsk.

But given the ongoing hostility between various Muslim countries and Israel we can ignore this, since it doesn't fit with the Jihadwatch slant that there might be even an ounce of legitimacy in their claims .

Straight UN facts. Oh, you'll have to remove those tin foil spectacles to read them.

And of the 3 the UN is the most "impartial" (such as it is) and universally represented, so that says little for the IMF and World Bank. I don't know... maybe I wouldn't mind Jihadwatch if they weren't so hysterical and stupidly (like black is white stupid) slanted in their potrayal of things from the potentially meaningful to the trite and meaningless - the latter seeming to be their specialty.

Go to the mirror, boy! Go to the mirror, boy!

[SUBMAN1]

What exactly are we arguing here? I see two or three distinct sides.

If you are arguing that Islam has a lot of fruitcakes, then you are correct.

If you are arguing that all this Islam stuff is boring, then you are correct.

If you are arguing that police don't have the ability to protect their people in Niger, yet they do in Western countries, then you are correct.

So what is the issue? Everyone is right!

-S

[scandium]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

No. That's the stuff that Islam preaches - and has for 1400 years - as Islam's ultimate goal.

Maybe you're wearing tin-foil shades.

Right, naturally the all powerful World Muslim Conspiracy will finally achieve what they haven't in 1400 years. Because... ?

Who owns the oil?

Damn those sly Muslims for having the nerve to occupy our oil! Wait.. not "our" oil, since the part of the West I call home is a net energy exporter and doesn't need their oil (rendering it meaningless as any kind of bargaining chip). I don't think Russia is particularly dependent on ME oil either so you must mean the US, since its the US that consumes something like 25% of the world's fossil fuels (while having very little relative capacity of its own anymore). But where does the US import all its oil from? The ME of course! Wrong. #1 source is Canada; #2 is Venezuela; since neither country is "Muslim" maybe you can see the pattern there (hint: #3 is not Saudi Arabia either).

So by your reasoning its actually Canada and Venezuela that control the UN (since these 2 countries are the largest exporters to the world's largest oil consumer and sole superpower). Nice theory AL. Of course that's absurd, but that just makes your reasoning all the more amusing. Even with Canada's other tremendous natural resources, that are not abundant in the ME (hydroelectricity, agriculture, lumber, minerals, etc) we can't even resolve our simple trade dispute with the US over softwood lumber.

But, really, what does this single natural resource mean when compared to the fact that all the Veto holders possess tremendous conventional and nuclear military capability, diverse natural resources of their own, treaties among them like NATO, the world's largest financial institutions, the only commodity exchanges where oil is traded, the only currency that oil is traded in, etc? Not much really eh.

Yep. The Muslims just can't get their way. Tsk.

And if they do try and organize any collective voice it means they're conspiring to take over the world rather than look out to their own interests (you know... like the rest of us do).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

What these two disconnect cases have to do with each other and how you intend to make one remove the significance of the other, I don't know,

Nothing. But according to Scandium all and everything is levelled out and undifferentiated, and thus even unconnected things in the end are not unconnected but one and the same, so when you say "up", you mean "down" at the same time, and when you say "left", you have to also say "right", you you can't say "light" without mentioning "dark", and when you feel "heat", in reality you feel "cold". To me it seems he once has red the Tao Te King and got the second verse terribly wrong, mistaking it with infinite relativism.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by scandium

So by your reasoning its actually Canada and Venezuela that control the UN (since these 2 countries are the largest exporters to the world's largest oil consumer and sole superpower).

Caseless comment.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Please take note of the overall oil production capacity of Venezuela and Canada, and the difference between potential ressources in Canada, and their actual production, and export, and then tell us again that these two are sufficient to feed the hunger of the greatest ouil consumer there is (not to mention all Wetsern industry nations together).