Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

Options
12357…10

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    And devout Muslims will take these types of things 'personally', whether you agree with it or not

    They shouldnt take it so personally,or indeed react so violently about a depiction of their prophet..

    Understanding their behaviour is all good and well,but there is a thin thin line of ice between understanding it and being complacent in condoning it..


  • Options
    #123
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Frank Grimes wrote: »
    And many devout Muslims will take these types of things 'personally', whether you agree with it or not.

    They can take it personally.. Just so long as they do not lay their hands on a single person. It's possible for them to protest without the use of violence.


  • Options
    #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    philologos wrote: »
    I think if you claim something about the Bible, you should walk through your objections and let others see if they are valid or not.

    Where did I raise an objection or a controversial claim? Re-read my explanatory post again, a couple of posts above. I was pointing out to christmas2012 that not everything that's written in a holy book is taken by its adherents as literal and proclaimed as their own opinion or belief. This was to point out that her insinuation that all Muslims believe the testimony of women is lower than that of men, despite it being written in the Qur'an, is nonsense. You know the Biblical passages about women I'm talking about. But nowhere did I say that a Christian would take these literally; I understand that there are particular contexts and interpretations to consider when reading such passages, but that's beside the point. My point, again, was that taking something that's written in a holy book at face value, and then insinuating that all followers of that religion believe it, is nonsense, and nothing more than a shallow attempt at painting millions of people as bad.


  • Options
    #125
    snafuk35
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    What i find worrying about the whole fiasco,is that the muslims there,seem to be more outraged about the actual film,than the actions of those who lynched and killed the US ambassador,who was an innocent party in all of this,and had nothing...nothing to do with the film that the egyptian director filmed about mohammed.

    He wasn't killed because of the film. He was killed because he was the U.S. ambassador. The Muslims rioters want an Islamic Empire from Morroco to Indonesia, from Central Asia to Sudan and they want the entire world to submit to Islam.
    They need to chill out a little bit,take off the rage tinted glasses,and not take every insult to their ''god'' so personally,its not like they got a personal attack on themselves..Even if someone personally attacked me etc,i would turn the other cheek so to speak,because it will wind them up even more,if they think youre not affected by them..

    These maniacs can be no more reasoned with than Adolf Hitler. They are fanatics. They believe they are commanded by Allah to spread Islam by force and to kill all who do not submit. It is a religious obligation as far as they are concerned.
    That egyptian director got what he wanted,notioriety and fame,of epic proportions,people the world over,know about this guy,and will want to see his film,and he caused a huge outcry in the arab world,what more publicity could one want?Sounds like a dream..

    The Egyptian director is a Coptic Christian, a minority in Egypt who are being mercilessly persecuted by Islamic fanatics.
    I think the film is idiotic but it has exposed the religious intolerance of a very vocal violent minority in Mid East countries.
    Meanwhile Tom Holland, the popular historian has come under threat of death by extremists for daring to produce a mainstream historical documentary on C4 about the origins of Islam.
    C4 pulled the show to appease these savages.
    Our very freedom of speech is now in the balance.


  • Options
    #126
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    gvn wrote: »
    Where did I raise an objection or a controversial claim? Re-read my explanatory post again, a couple of posts above. I was pointing out to christmas2012 that not everything that's written in a holy book is taken by its adherents as literal and proclaimed as their own opinion or belief. This was to point out that her insinuation that all Muslims believe the testimony of women is lower than that of men, despite it being written in the Qur'an, is nonsense. You know the Biblical passages about women I'm talking about. But nowhere did I say that a Christian would take these literally; I understand that there are particular contexts and interpretations to consider when reading such passages, but that's beside the point. My point, again, was that taking something that's written in a holy book at face value, and then insinuating that all followers of that religion believe it, is nonsense, and nothing more than a shallow attempt at painting millions of people as bad.

    I know passages which are commonly claimed to be such certainly. In all the discussions on boards.ie I've seen when these Biblical passages have actually been raised, they've been isolated from their original context and twisted. It's not about "literal" or "not literal" it's about what the passages are actually saying in their correct context.

    That's why I'm asking you to quote what you mean so we can discuss it. Otherwise I can't see much basis to your argument.

    Your point seems lacking to me. You claimed that Christians ignore the Bible on these issues, I'm just asking how. If you didn't want this to be an issue discussed, you shouldn't have raised it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    This is not the bible discussion forum, move on and get back on topic please


  • Options
    #128
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    dlofnep wrote: »
    They can take it personally.. Just so long as they do not lay their hands on a single person. It's possible for them to protest without the use of violence.

    Indeed, their religious leaders should be laying down the law to them that what they are doing is wrong.

    Its all just an excuse under the guise of religion. These guys need to lighten up, it's 2012.


  • Options
    #129
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    They shouldnt take it so personally,or indeed react so violently about a depiction of their prophet..
    Well 'they' do regardless of whether you like it or not. And 'they' do not react violently, some do.
    christmas2012 wrote:
    Understanding their behaviour is all good and well,but there is a thin thin line of ice between understanding it and being complacent in condoning it..
    So you're basically accusing me of condoning violence because I can understand how and why Muslims may take something said/depicted about Muhammad personally. Excellent leap of logic there, again well done.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    They can take it personally.. Just so long as they do not lay their hands on a single person. It's possible for them to protest without the use of violence.
    Again, some are.


  • Options
    #130
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    So you're basically accusing me of condoning violence because I can understand how and why Muslims may take something said/depicted about Muhammad personally.

    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong ..


  • Options
    #131
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong ..
    That's exactly what I did in my post.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong ..
    Also, understanding someone's else behaviour or rationale for doing/thinking something etc. does not equal ascribing reasons for that behaviour.


  • Options
    #133
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Oh i didnt say it was equal..


  • Options
    #134
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    Oh i didnt say it was equal..
    You did.


  • Options
    #135
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    By understanding their behavior one has the inclination to give reasons forth as to why they demonostrate such behaviour..I didnt say it was equal to though..


  • Options
    #136
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    By understanding their behavior one has the inclination to give reasons forth as to why they demonostrate such behaviour
    Yes, that would be the general idea alright.
    christmas2012 wrote:
    ..I didnt say it was equal to though..
    Yes you did.
    christmas2012 wrote:
    I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour


  • Options
    #137
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    By (..............)to though..

    For the fifth time - could you get back to me on the point raised here please....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90


  • Options
    #138
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    One has to admit - it probably wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

    The Middle East secular despot vs militant theocracy debate...


  • Options
    #139
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Nodin wrote: »
    For the fifth time - could you get back to me on the point raised here please....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90
    Something tells me you'll be waiting, even moreso than you are at present :)


  • Options
    #140
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Overheal wrote: »
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jvnn_NQDYccDCNlVlcx7zZR3dIjw?docId=CNG.7f23ea5f543b6342902a442e1feea6f4.801

    And that is the sound of a foot meeting a mouth...

    That's protesting, notice in my post I referred to full on violent rioting. That's only happening in countries with an already politically volatile relationship with the US, it seems. So I stand by my theory that religion is just a front for venting deeper anger which has probably been waiting for an excuse.


  • Options
    #141
    V_Moth
    Registered Users Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭V_Moth


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    One has to admit - it probably wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

    The Middle East secular despot vs militant theocracy debate...

    I think you are simplifying are very complex region far too much. Qaddafy was hardly secular, at least not when it suited him. The latter extreme is largely due to poisonous influence of Saudi-Arabia and its export of Wahhabism/Salafism into the wider Middle Eastern region.

    One should bear in mind that Islam is not one united religion, but rather consists of three elements - the Sunni, Shia and mystical "Sufi" elements. Each differ in their interpretation of the Quran. The Salafists (most likely responsible for the recent attacks) are an extreme subset of Sunni Islam.

    I would wager the vast majority of Muslims are appalled by these attacks and opposed to the extremism advocated by Salafists.

    EDIT: How did that smiley get there??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Fromthetrees
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    That's protesting, notice in my post I referred to full on violent rioting. That's only happening in countries with an already politically volatile relationship with the US, it seems. So I stand by my theory that religion is just a front for venting deeper anger which has probably been waiting for an excuse.
    It's not an either/or situation imo, poverty, US imperialism and a religion that is not inherently peaceful all adds to the situation. It's like the perfect storm for things like this.
    We're lucky that most human beings are essentially peaceful, we're lucky that most human beings don't interpret holy books literally.
    Religion plays a massive role in every persons life in every country, you can't underestimate how damaging religion can be.
    Religion can be a powerful force for good but maybe that's to be said in a different thread.


  • Options
    #143
    lagente
    Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭lagente


    Biggest arms shipment yet has just gone to Turkey from Libya. From there it will go to Syria.
    The ultimate disgrace.
    over 400 tons including SAM 7 anti-aircraft + rpgs
    " Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from Libya." is the article in the Times.

    Was looking at some of the Ummah brigade videos, with the Irish Libyans in it. The Irish fighters are mercenary Islamic fundamentalists, especially those at the top. Some are Salafists, an extremely dangerous form of Islam, that is causing the problem in Egypt. The Irish fighters are trying to soften us to their militant actions through the media, but their actions speak louder than their bullsh1t. Be under no illusions, they are troublemakers. The key ones will survive this conflict because they are very useful people in gathering a mass of supporters, contacts, etc.
    Reading more into the conflict I discovered that the conflict is being disguised as a sectarian and religious war. It's actually a war being fueled by the Saudi regimes and Iran trying to hold sway of the region. They are paying people to go fight and cause mayhem. Sickening that Ireland had to be involved in this.


  • Options
    #144
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    One has to admit - it probably wouldn't have happened under Gaddafi.

    The Middle East secular despot vs militant theocracy debate...
    That wasn't a secular country either.


  • Options
    #145
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lagente wrote: »
    ..........

    Was looking at some of the Ummah brigade videos, with the Irish Libyans in it. The Irish fighters are mercenary Islamic fundamentalists, especially those at the top. Some are Salafists, an extremely dangerous form of Islam, that is causing the problem in Egypt. .......


    You've a source for this?


  • Options
    #146
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    By understanding their behavior one has the inclination to give reasons forth as to why they demonostrate such behaviour
    Yes, that would be the general idea alright.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christmas2012
    ..I didnt say it was equal to though..
    Yes you did.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christmas2012
    I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour


    You have a different understanding of what i said,i will say it again,there is thin line of a difference i didnt say it was equal to..


  • Options
    #147
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    You have a different understanding of what i said,i will say it again,there is thin line of a difference i didnt say it was equal to..

    For the sixth time - Some reason you can't answer the question....?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80768518&postcount=90


  • Options
    #148
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Oh..okay
    So do black muslims go round hating themselves, or is there perhaps a set of circumstances and conditions that you haven't considered?

    No i dont think black muslims hate themselves..


  • Options
    #149
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    You have a different understanding of what i said,i will say it again,there is thin line of a difference i didnt say it was equal to..
    I really can't tell why you're doing this, but yet again as I stated here:
    You said, and I'll emphasise the relevant bit:
    christmas2012 wrote:
    No,im not accusing you of condoning violence.I merley stated that there is a thin line between understanding,and by that i mean by giving reasons to others for their behaviour,and not outrightly counteracting it,and saying its wrong
    I replied:
    me wrote:
    Also, understanding someone's else behaviour or rationale for doing/thinking something etc. does not equal ascribing reasons for that behaviour.
    Understanding something does not equate to ascribing reasons for it.


  • Options
    #150
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    christmas2012 wrote: »
    No i dont think black muslims hate themselves..
    So why do they adhere to a religion that has a "psychotic hatred for those who are black"?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    christmas2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭christmas2012


    Ayaan Hirsi Ali was making points about how blacks were looked down on by certain sects of muslims and in general arab muslims would look down on them..


Advertisement