How can we deal with the Muslim overreactions? page 4

214 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:
Originally posted by EPR89:

So if someone is a problem for you you simply say: “Kill him?”

And you call them awful people…

No. I said take what action is necessary. Right choice for right job.
You must have misread my post.

I said – try and reort to seeking peace and prosperity, but be prepared to fight if you have to.

Construct and defend and seek to help others.

Was responding to MyTie.

I actually quite agree with what you said. I’m just not that sure about the world police thing. Attacking a country that you are not at war with is always a tricky issue, especially when you do it with good intentions, because not everyone is a terrorist. But in a war many innocent people in that country will suffer.

 
Flag Post
I see now why many posters find you rather irritating to debate anything with.

Because I’m awesome, I know. People think it’s easy, but it has its downsides.

None of your rebuttals were on-target with what i said.

I wasn’t challenging what you said as much as pointing out how you mangled my argument. I generally agreed with most of what you said, just irritated at another person misstating my argument. But, I can go again for you:

uh…actually, MOST of the muslim governments HATE AQ.

Again, I never said most governments hate AQ. I said Muslim governments either foster the sects (which you acknowledged), or became pissed off in an unhealthy manner when Islam is critiqued/mocked etc.

See, originally AQ’s beef was with Saudi Arabia. For being too conservative, amusingly. And then once they got ejected from SA, they left the arab peninsula and went into other countries that were too pig-ignorant to understand how dangerous they were, like Afghanistan and the Sudan. And while they were in those countries, they realized the major problem was that the most conservative islamic regimes, like SA, or the Emirates, Egypt, etc, were being propped up by the US. So they switched targets and started attacking the US.

Didn’t even respond to this paragraph. Moving on:

Oh, and Iran really has nothing to do with muslims rioting in the streets OR with AQ. They hate AQ because of the sunni/shi’a thing. Iran makes a lot of noise internationally with the nuke thing and ahmadinejad, but they’re leery of rampant chaos, unless it’s against Israel which they’re cool with. That’s why they support Hezbollah, which is also the reason Lebanon would be OK with seeing these radicals dealt with. The only countries that really support radical terrorism are a few north african regimes and Pakistan, and, well, we didn’t find out about the latter until recently.

I never said Iran had anything to do with muslims rioting in the streets (because when they did riot against the Iranian government, it was quickly suppressed) or with Al-Qaeda. I mentioned Iran because they have sanctioned death sentences against people who have mocked Muhammad (see: Salmon Rushdie).

So on the whole most of the islamic governments really don’t have much to do with radical terrorism at all, at least the kind that attacks the US or allies. It’s all coming from within these states, but not directed by them.

Again, I never said this. It’s really great how you can get into a huff for me misunderstanding you while at the same time implying I’ve said things that I never did. It’s really quite fantastic.

And, I can’t put my finger on sources at the moment, but there’s plenty of muslim intellectuals living in the middle east who vocally despise radical terrorism. The whole idea that they’d be hunted down for speaking their mind is just kind of funny…bashing AQ isn’t like bashing muhammed. it’s not like a big secret in Egypt that AQ is batshit insane – and they’ve got guys in their government who share the same theology, they just don’t think blowing stuff up accomplishes anything. The areas where you’d get in trouble for dissing AQ are the same places you wouldn’t find ‘rational’ muslims – the poorer rural areas where they recruit most of their followers.

I was pointing out the irony that it’s more dangerous to speak out against a religion than it is a terrorist organization. I don’t especially disagree with any of this.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

So if someone is a problem for you you simply say: “Kill him?”

And you call them awful people…

So if someone slaughters our ambassador, and drags his raped corpse through the streets, you think that’s ok? You think that it is acceptable? What would you want us to do, apologize to them? Maybe send them money? You make me sick. Thank goodness everyone isn’t so spineless.

 
Flag Post

So if someone slaughters our ambassador, and drags his raped corpse through the streets, you think that’s ok? You think that it is acceptable? What would you want us to do, apologize to them? Maybe send them money? You make me sick. Thank goodness everyone isn’t so spineless.

You honestly need to stop with the strawmen and seeing stuff in black and white. There is a huge gray area, and many neutral positions.

How to deal with them? Kill them to prevent them from gaining political control and attacking more people, or holding their own citizens hostage, such as what Hamas does.

How does this make you any better than them?

 
Flag Post

Oh and if someone needs to see a breakdown of terrorists in Europe https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/tesat2007.pdf the majority of these weren’t muslim but separatists.

 
Flag Post

I think it’s funny to act like Islam is the only religion that could have done this. It’s worth remembering things like the generally low literacy rates in many Middle Eastern countries, as well as the fact that not all of them speak Arabic which is the sacred language of the Koran. Having large groups of people willing to believe the religion wholeheartedly without having access to the religious texts is an easy thing for any sort of corrupt religious leader to take advantage of. And because of the situation is it easy to claim things would be different if the people in the regions were Buddhist or Christian or Pagan? I mean, we saw lots of abuses of religion in pre-reformation Europe that didn’t really start to improve until the Bible became translated and literacy rose (though it still took a while after that).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:You honestly need to stop with the strawmen and seeing stuff in black and white. There is a huge gray area, and many neutral positions.

You know, I thought about explaining how killing the radicals who are killing, bombing, and vying for political power is a good thing, and how that is my position. But, EPR rephrased my argument to anyone that “is a problem”, as if as a matter of expediency, death is the option for anyone not in line with me. With EPR, I can either re explain my position over and over and over, or I can push him back on his own position, in the same shitty strawmen style that mine is. Of course, it’s cool for him but unacceptable for me to do that, according to you and your biased view. So, here’s a cookie. Now go fly a kite.

 
Flag Post

I wasn’t aware that his raped corpse was dragged through the street…

Anyway, let’s try this again:

Why do you think that invading that country and killing all those people would help in creating a stable situation? I think it is much more likely that you will be viewed as a terrorist by the citizens of that country.
Who are you going to kill anyway? The ones who killed that ambassador? I highly doubt that those guys are going to become political leaders in the near future.
But hey, you complained that I was misrepresenting what you said by saying anyone that causes problems. If you are only after the ones who used violence – which would be the guys with the rocket launchers and the machine guns who attacked the embassy – then that would be it, right? You would chase those 10 maybe 30 guys down and kill them. Well, good luck finding them.

Or do you want to kill the religious leaders (which I doubt, because that would obviously not what you said in your original post) who started saying: “This is blasphemy! Revenge!!!” On what basis do you want to kill them? How do you justify that? How do you explain it to the peaceful people in that country. I highly doubt: “Worry not. We are the world police and we have come to bring you peace. <insert sound of artillery fire here> YEEEHAW!!!” will cut it.

 
Flag Post

So if someone slaughters our ambassador, and drags his raped corpse through the streets, you think that’s ok? You think that it is acceptable? What would you want us to do, apologize to them? Maybe send them money? You make me sick. Thank goodness everyone isn’t so spineless.

Oh, look. Foreign policy via small dick syndrome.
Seems effective.

How do some people not realize that violence is NOT the answer for every problem?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

I wasn’t aware that his raped corpse was dragged through the street…

Anyway, let’s try this again:

Why do you think that invading that country and killing all those people would help in creating a stable situation? I think it is much more likely that you will be viewed as a terrorist by the citizens of that country.
Who are you going to kill anyway? The ones who killed that ambassador? I highly doubt that those guys are going to become political leaders in the near future.
But hey, you complained that I was misrepresenting what you said by saying anyone that causes problems. If you are only after the ones who used violence – which would be the guys with the rocket launchers and the machine guns who attacked the embassy – then that would be it, right? You would chase those 10 maybe 30 guys down and kill them. Well, good luck finding them.

Or do you want to kill the religious leaders (which I doubt, because that would obviously not what you said in your original post) who started saying: “This is blasphemy! Revenge!!!” On what basis do you want to kill them? How do you justify that? How do you explain it to the peaceful people in that country. I highly doubt: “Worry not. We are the world police and we have come to bring you peace. &lt;insert sound of artillery fire here&gt; YEEEHAW!!!” will cut it.

If I had been president, instead of the talking suit we have now, I would have had infinitely more intelligence work done in all areas of the middle east, especially coming up to 9/11. I mean, seriously. At that point I would have had more than 3 marines on the ground, and I wouldn’t have required them to keep the ammo locked up away from their post. Friggin stupid as hell. I would’ve had a couple of teams of marines at each embassy. Then, the stupid bastards who stormed the embassy would have slowed down a bit when they had to climb over the corpses of the people going in front of them. That would have made them think. What can we do about this now? How the hell should I know. Big O has fucked it up beyond fixing at this point. GG dipshit. Now go vote for him again. Hope. Change. Forward. All that meaningless bullshit you slap on your bumper. Brilliant.

 
Flag Post

How do you think the general reactions would have been if the “US had shot up a protest” (that’s the spin this event would have been giving if you were the president. Instead you should prepere a good way to evacuate all embassies in less stabile areas (or just all of then). You know it’s going to be a target if there are any problems so I would make large tunnels out of there while keeping secret where they lead and then just evacuate further from there.

 
Flag Post

They launched rockets at our embassy. Fucking rockets. No one would have been shocked or outraged if they had marines to fire back.

A tunnel? A tunnel? You want everyone in the Muslim world to know that the US runs away through a tunnel when confronted? Brilliant!

 
Flag Post

What you need to do is get all non military guys out of a combat situation. You then hold back until it’s clear they are the once who are wrong and then you retaliate but with minimal force (but enough to get them out). You have to show moral superiority if you want public opinion on your side. These fights are all about on whose side the public is and by being aggressive you look morally weak. I think the way to get people on your side is to both focus on getting the media ready and then trying to show that you prefer the most peaceful approach even when faced with aggression and that while you do make mistakes you always feel sorry for them and you are willing to show your mistakes (like killed civilians). That way you will quickly get the public on your side and thus prevent riots and have a warning system for terrorist activities(if the people are calling you if they see something weird then you can act on it if the population is against you they will hide terrorists and might riot against you).

 
Flag Post

Frankly, I believe when they attacked our embassies, we should of been gunning hundreds of those people down.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AirmanAlex:

Frankly, I believe when they attacked our embassies, we should of been gunning hundreds of those people down.

I agree.

If a small group of extremists does something, we should massacre anyone who has anything in common with them.

I mean, they are different from me and therefor not human!!!!

 
Flag Post

I am sure the director should have known it would make fun of Muhammed. It’s one thing to put it in English, Japanese, Spanish, but why in the language that would find it offensive? That’s like making a movie called “Political Domination” where America sends all it’s armies out to destroy China, and each chinese soldier is a sterotypical coward. I don’t know much of the story, but if what I have heard is true, the director got/will get what he deserved/s.

A tunnel? A tunnel? You want everyone in the Muslim world to know that the US runs away through a tunnel when confronted? Brilliant!

I’d rather be considered a coward then a savage who kills all that start shit.

 
Flag Post
I don’t know much of the story, but if what I have heard is true, the director got/will get what he deserved/s.

What happened to the First Amendment? What happened to free speech? You’re accepting prosecution for free speech, and that is despicable.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

What happened to the First Amendment? What happened to free speech? You’re accepting prosecution for free speech, and that is despicable.

There’s a difference between free speech and deliberate hate speech. In other words, free speech does have limits. If you use your speech to incite a riot, it’s not a protected form of speech.

It is also worth pointing out that the jurisdiction of the first amendment does not extend past the national borders of the United States.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AirmanAlex:

Frankly, I believe when they attacked our embassies, we should of been gunning hundreds of those people down.

Sure. Also, MyTie mentioned that the Marines had their ammo in a separte location locked away from them. Marines. Did they really? When I was in the Air Force, we carried our guns, ammo (120 rounds, thank you) with us at all times and often had a round chambered. Has policy changed or something?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

There’s a difference between free speech and deliberate hate speech. In other words, free speech does have limits. If you use your speech to incite a riot, it’s not a protected form of speech.

Does this apply to Westboro Baptist?

 
Flag Post
There’s a difference between free speech and deliberate hate speech. In other words, free speech does have limits. If you use your speech to incite a riot, it’s not a protected form of speech.

In order to make that connection, you have to show that the filmmaker intended to incite said riot with the film, as opposed to simply being an asshole who wanted to make fun of Islam. I’m hesitant to think he intended to cause a riot (although he had to have known there would be unhappy people in the Middle East).

It is also worth pointing out that the jurisdiction of the first amendment does not extend past the national borders of the United States.

The filmmaker hasn’t left the country and was detained in California (could be wrong on the location). He is very much covered under the First Amendment, barring this video being seen as fighting words.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Cdr_CROWface:
Originally posted by AirmanAlex:

Frankly, I believe when they attacked our embassies, we should of been gunning hundreds of those people down.

I agree.

If a small group of extremists does something, we should massacre anyone who has anything in common with them.

I mean, they are different from me and therefor not human!!!!

I did not say go around gunning every single muslim, in a 50 block radius around the embassy, I said, the people attacking the embassy should of been shot and killed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AirmanAlex:

I did not say go around gunning every single muslim, in a 50 block radius around the embassy,

No, but you also said “gunning down hundreds of those people.”

I said, the people attacking the embassy should of been shot and killed.

And you were very vague about it,

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Does this apply to Westboro Baptist?

Every single one of them has passed a bar exam. They are very, very careful to stay just on the line between what is legal, and what is not legal.


Originally posted by issendorf:

In order to make that connection, you have to show that the filmmaker intended to incite said riot with the film, as opposed to simply being an asshole who wanted to make fun of Islam. I’m hesitant to think he intended to cause a riot (although he had to have known there would be unhappy people in the Middle East).

True, but there have been similar incidents in the past, where such a work resulted in this exact same reaction. That should be enough to show that reasonably the maker would have been aware of the response their words would trigger, and yet still went ahead with their project. So the intent to cause a riot is legally quite arguable.

The filmmaker hasn’t left the country and was detained in California (could be wrong on the location). He is very much covered under the First Amendment, barring this video being seen as fighting words.

I think I was referring more to the member of the film’s staff MyTie was talking about. Something about them being killed, sexually molested and then dismembered, with bits of their body dragged through the streets? Admittedly I have seen nothing of that incident on the news, but in that instance, because the individual is not in the United States or a US territory at the time, United States laws will not protect that individual.