Good post, as you say there are more than a few people offended by opinions on this list lately.
On 2/7/06, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And you still don't know where people got the idea? > > A 'significan't number of muslims? How many muslims are there in the > world? How many of htem are terrorists? > I've never met a terrorist, and I know very many muslims as I've > pointed out due to the demographics of my island. > > Then you launch into another ad hominem attack, and the only way to > bolster your argument is to argue something which I never said. I > never said I defended Extremists, or terrorists. Yet your point of > view is so very skewed that the only argument you have is to concoct > such a statement. You cannot argue against anything I have actually > said, so you make something up. > > What I said was that the cartoon quite clearly offends Muslims on the > whole, and Muslims on the whole find it offensive. Therefore it should > never have been published in the first instance, nor should the > offense have been prolonged and there be further provocation by other > newspapers also publishing the piece. Respect for religion should have > won over some nebulous notion of 'Freedom of the Press'. Freedom of > the Press carries with it certain responsibilities. The text of the > piece itself was rife with inaccuracies and misrepresentations of > Islam, and that needs to be discussed. > > I have stated more than once that there is no excuse for the violence, > and it is absolutely horrific. You blatantly ignore the calls against > the violence by muslim leaders, or perhaps it isn't reported in your > own biased Media. But if you want an example, local muslim leaders > have said the cartoon was offensive, should never have been published > and said the violence is sad and strengthens a perverted view of > Islam. That violence has to fit *someone's* agenda though. It does not > fit the agenda of Muslims. Did you even bother to read the quotes I > posted by Muslims living in Trinidad about the incident? No I'm sure > you didn't. > > Yet your points are so weak, and perhaps you yourself have difficulty > coming to terms with them, so you must brand everyone who does not > agree with you a terrorist or extremist defender or sympathiser. > > I put to you again that these were the same attitudes and arguments > used by Hitler's political party, and argued by his followers against > the jews.They are the same arguments used by the colonists against the > Native Americans, or the Caribbean Amerindians.They are the same > arguments used by Whites against Blacks during Slavery. If you don't > believe me, go do some research. The we are better than them, they are > not worthy, they are greedy selfish money lovers destroying the world. > Do some substitution and the attitiude of hatred and intolerance is > all neatly packaged into the 'arguments' some on this list try to put > forward. We really haven't moved on since then it seems. > > If you can't understand why SEVERAL members of this list would get the > impression that myself, Jim, and Dana have gotten, then it is not > either one of us that can't understand 'complex' issues. > > On 2/7/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Grussgott wrote: > > > Funny how everyone that says they got the impression that certain > > > people were saying that Muslims were inherently bad because of their > > > religion,or equating Islam to fanaticism and terrorism can't 'grasp' > > > the concept of the discussion. > > > > > > > Here's the concept in a nutshell: > > > > (1.) There's a significant number of Muslims that use their religion > > to justify violence and murder over trivial things like a book or a > > cartoon. These same Muslims have no problem denigrating other > > religions with the same types of things they take offense to. > > > > (2.) Their defenders, such as yourself, complain about cartoons that > > offend fanatics, but have no complaints when those fanatics use > > religion to justify violence and murder. > > > > Burning down an embassy because a newspaper printed a cartoon is the > > height of lawlessness and if there are Muslims that disagree with it, > > show me the protests. > > > > The lack of protests may not indicate an endorsement of the arson, but > > it doesn't indicate opposition either. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:196076 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
