US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

Brussels Sprout

RTE are reporting that the US ambassador to Libya was amongst four people who were killed last night by a rampaging mob in Benghazi. The mob were protesting a movie shown in America depicting the prophet Muhammad.

I wonder how many of these people would be alive now if it wasn’t for NATO intervention last year after it looked like Gaddafi was going to turn the tide on the rebels and take back this very city.

The Taliban beheading people for dancing at a party. The Pakistanis wanting to lynch a reportedly disabled child for tearing pages of the Koran. Enough is enough. When is Islam going to emerge from Medieval times?

CptMackey

I don't think it will ever emerge from those times. It's seems to me that some Muslims use any excuse of "offence" to go mad a kill and butcher those around them.

I often wonder if the west is better off leaving these dictators in power who don't preach militant Islam. All the arab sping seems to have done is bring forth more Militant Islamic groups who preach murder and keep women down.

Manach

Whilst a terrible incident, this should be linked to the societal conditions on the ground in Libya and not solely due to the Muslim faith where in more developed countries (Jordon, Indonesia, Malaysia) it is part of the normal stable fabric of society.

drdeadlift

I dont believe half the stuff America report in Muslim countries.They seem to depict an image of the average muslim as a phyco yet they are pillaging the mid east.

Jonny7

Embassy in Cairo was attacked also. Film is very obscure - I believe it somehow involves the infamous pastor in the US who threatened to burn the Koran before but backed down.

Jonny7

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The Taliban beheading people for dancing at a party. The Pakistanis wanting to lynch a reportedly disabled child for tearing pages of the Koran. Enough is enough. When is Islam going to emerge from Medieval times?

There are differing reports on the Taliban incident, some say they were informants, not excusing the Taliban though whom regularily enlist children as suicide bombers.

An Imam has been arrested for planting burnt pages on the child, the family are still receiving death threats - in fairness, that part of the world is very backward, with or without Islam.

The question isn't so much about Islam emerging from the dark ages, more to do with the people in those regions and areas of the world.

the_syco

Jonny7 wrote: »

in fairness, that part of the world is very backward, with or without Islam.

Considering how the catholic church held back Ireland until not so long ago, I think we can say that Islam had a hand in preventing some countries from going forward?

opinionated3

drdeadlift wrote: »

I dont believe half the stuff America report in Muslim countries.They seem to depict an image of the average muslim as a phyco yet they are pillaging the mid east.

It doesn't need American or western media to portray them as psychos....they do a good enough job of that themselves. Idiots.

wes

Certainly a terrible thing happened in Libya, but the fact is that the government is still trying to pull things together, and that they need to create new security forces, police etc, which will take some time.

So in a vacuum like this, extremists will try to assert themselves using violence, as they don't care for elections, as they tend not to get elected due to there extreme views. IMHO, these kind of violent acts, show how desperate the extremists are, as they can't achieve anything by via the ballot box or other non-violent means.

So, it will take time for Libya to sort things out, and I think it silly to expect a fully functioning democracy so soon.

Anyway, an interesting article by Juan Cole regarding this:
Romney Poses, as Militants Burn Benghazi Consulate, killing One, & Demonstrate in Cairo, over Islamophobic Film

The Corinthian

drdeadlift wrote: »

I dont believe half the stuff America report in Muslim countries.They seem to depict an image of the average muslim as a phyco yet they are pillaging the mid east.

So that a mob attacked a diplomatic mission and killed the ambassador is a fabrication?

Not all Arab countries are the same naturally; some, like Tunisia, are far more secular and developed than others. However, as the increased influence of religious fundamentalism seems to be filling the void of the regimes that have been toppled, increasingly I am beginning to view Western support for the Arab Spring to be akin to Turkeys voting for Christmas.

dlofnep

No excuse for this nonsense. I don't care how offended you are about criticism or attacks on your 'prophet'. That does not give you the right to kill innocent people. Thoughts with the families of ill who were pointlessly murdered.

jmayo

CptMackey wrote: »

...
I often wonder if the west is better off leaving these dictators in power who don't preach militant Islam. All the arab sping seems to have done is bring forth more Militant Islamic groups who preach murder and keep women down.

Two instances brought me to that conclusion long ago.

The first was watching a program about Egypt where on the one hand you had a nice western educated free thinking young girl and on the other a beardy young fellow who was running for election for the muslim brotherhood.
They had an election poster which showed pictures of the other candidates.
As far as I can recall they all had beards, but there was one very noticable blank space.
This was for the one female candidate.
The young guy explained that some imans reckoned it was wrong to show the image of a woman.
And this was the party (or its offshoot the Freedom and Justice Party) that affectively won the elections.

BTW AFAIK that organisations belief are...
God is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.


The second incident that made me wonder was Gaddiffi better left in charge was the destruction of a WWII graveyard by some of those so called freedom fighters .
These "freedom fighters" decided to destroy the gravestones since they showed crosses and they went at the one showing a star of David with great relish.

So much for fighting for freedom.
Some of these numpties are fighting for the exact opposite.

Manach wrote: »

Whilst a terrible incident, this should be linked to the societal conditions on the ground in Libya and not solely due to the Muslim faith where in more developed countries (Jordon, Indonesia, Malaysia) it is part of the normal stable fabric of society.

Excuses excuses.
For your Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia I give you Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, etc.
Feck it I can't name them all which have shown huge amounts of intolerance all based on religious ideas.

Suff

People are quick to jump and accuse the faith, these actions cannot be blamed on Islam. For years, and years Islam gets the blame for political extremists and psychos. We can easily apply the same principle to the likes of Hitler (Catholic), Stalin (Atheist), Bush (Methodist) and King Leopold II of Belgium (Catholic) just to name a few ... If so, then we can generalise that Christianity, Atheism are to blame for these men's actions.

Regardless of their religion, people commit atrocities while hiding behind their faith - using it as a justification tool.

My advice for the few who applied the words 'backward' 'held back from moving forward' I recommend you read a book or two on islamic contribution to western civilisation.

Wiki link, 1 2 3

The problem is ignorance, it's not Islam.

Einhard

Hmmmm, a few dozen Muslims, at most, storm an embassy and kill diplomats, and this is indicative of the entire Muslim population. According to official reports, dozens of Catholic clergy in Ireland conspired well into the last decade to cover up child abuse, and move paedophiles rather than report them. When will Irish Catholics shed their medieval barbarism?

I mean...this is the ridiculous generalisation thread isn't it?

Border-Rat

Mike Rivero said it best;

The US invaded Libya, wrecked the country, looted the gold that was going to support the Gold Dinar, killed Qaddafi, imposed a puppet regime and a private central bank on the people of Libya, but really, this was all a fuss over a movie. Really. Honest. No fooling!

SocSocPol

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

RTE are reporting that the US ambassador to Libya was amongst four people who were killed last night by a rampaging mob in Benghazi. The mob were protesting a movie shown in America depicting the prophet Muhammad.

I wonder how many of these people would be alive now if it wasn’t for NATO intervention last year after it looked like Gaddafi was going to turn the tide on the rebels and take back this very city.

The Taliban beheading people for dancing at a party. The Pakistanis wanting to lynch a reportedly disabled child for tearing pages of the Koran. Enough is enough. When is Islam going to emerge from Medieval times?

One has to ask if this statement is not a dangerous generalization. Islam is the biggest religion in the world, it has many diverse sects within it, to allow a post which portrays it as medievil and backward is highly insulting.

SeanW

Suff wrote: »

People are quick to jump and accuse the faith, these actions cannot be blamed on Islam. For years, and years Islam gets the blame for political extremists and psychos. We can easily apply the same principle to the likes of Hitler (Catholic)

I realise I may risk invoking Godwin's law here, but I blame the Catholic church for the Nazi genocide. Not only were Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler both raised as Catholics, but the Catholic Church had spent the previous thousand years demonising Jews as hated Christ killers, so much so that Anti Semitism was, and is still ingrained in the European psyche. European history pre WWII is littered with pogroms and expropriations targeting Jews, of which the Nazi death camps were, to my mind, just a natural conclusion.

They toned down the anti-Semitism a bit after WWII, but its mark is indellible, I remember being "taught" by my Catholic 3rd class teacher in our holy Catholic school system that "everbody hates Jews."

The Catholic Church also was a glorified child rape gang from the 1940s to the 1990s in Ireland and the U.S. and their position on contraception has helped turn the AIDS virus from a mere concern into an African pandemic. They're also rabidly homophobic, in line with other Abrahamic religions.

So yes, as far as I am concerned, the Catholic Church is just behind Wahabbist Islam or Scientology in being as close to pure evil as it is possible for any human ideology to be.

Einhard

Border-Rat wrote: »

Mike Rivero said it best;

Mike Rivero is an idiot then.

Border-Rat

Einhard wrote: »

Mike Rivero is an idiot then.

So the ousting of Gadaffi had nothing to do with his intention to establish a gold-backed Dinar. It was all just due to NATO's love of freedom and puppies and the disappearance of said gold just a coincidence. And he is the idiot?

Right.

peace2804

Any act like this one, regardless of who committed it or where it happened, should not be tolerated however, there is no need to put the blame on the entire Muslim community.

I believe (in fact I know) that Islam doesn't allow such atrocities, nor does any religion, but the fact is there are insane and crazy people in the world (everywhere), a dozen of crazy people certainly don't represent the entire Muslim community in the world.

I also want to say that anybody has the right to protest if they don't like to see their prophet in a movie and so on......but peacefully, protests should be accepted as soon as they are simply a way to express an opinion.

cyberhog

Gaddafi kept a lid on the crazies, NATO set them free.

AlekSmart

Border-Rat wrote: »

So the ousting of Gadaffi had nothing to do with his intention to establish a gold-backed Dinar. It was all just due to NATO's love of freedom and puppies and the disappearance of said gold just a coincidence. And he is the idiot?

Right.

I've always been confident that Gadaffi would eventually be, at least somewhat,more accurately represented as modern Libyan history came to be written.

I did'nt,however,expect that writing process to begin so soon after his execution.

NATO's little Libyan adventure/experiment has'nt ended yet,in fact I believe they'll have to return sooner rather than later,in an attempt to get Gadaffi's Libyan lid back on it's Libyan box.

It's more apparent than ever that the original UN/NATO adventure really did'nt have much forward planning applied to it.

Interestingly,two of the biggest players,S.Berlusconi and M.Sarkozy are now off the world political radar,leaving only HMG's representative's Mr Cameron and Mr Hague to stage the rematch.

Laminations

peace2804 wrote: »

I believe (in fact I know) that Islam doesn't allow such atrocities, nor does any religion, but the fact is there are insane and crazy people in the world (everywhere), a dozen of crazy people certainly don't represent the entire Muslim community in the world..

I agree but also disagree. Islam doesn't allow or doesn't disallow anything. It, like any religion, can only be practised through someone's interpretations and teachings. In Catholicism they have a hierarchical church that interprets for many. Huge criticisms have been levelled at this church, its interpretation and rulings and even lapsed members (with count me out campaigns). In Islam there isn't such a hierarchy, it is far more fractured with Islamic sects, but there are Imams that interpret and teach, mostly males (a sexism Islam shares with Catholicism and other religions). So while there may not be a massive organisation (like the church) to blame there are imams and religious structures in Islam - it IS an organised religion. So there is scripture and then there is dogma. And there are some wholly crooked and evil Imams.

So Islam is not to blame, it only exists in people's interpretations of it. The people interpreting Islam to justify and spread their hate are to blame, and the teaching of Islam is twisted to political agendas in certain countries. Islam (or muslims if you wish as they are the living interpretation of the religion) does have a problem in certain parts of the world and generally in the fractured interpretations that exist. It has the good and evil of any organised religion. Every Muslim is not to blame just as every Libyan is not to blame.

Terrorists will always try and wrap their actions in some convenient flag, let's not fall for it.

Tea drinker

So the attack was obviously planned as RPG are not standard protest gear, so the attackers used the protest... or did they organise it?

Border-Rat wrote: »

So the ousting of Gadaffi had nothing to do with his intention to establish a gold-backed Dinar. It was all just due to NATO's love of freedom and puppies and the disappearance of said gold just a coincidence. And he is the idiot?

Right.

have you got something o back up these claims? I love a conspiracy theory but most seem to think it was about oil/gas deals.

cyberhog wrote: »

Gaddafi kept a lid on the crazies, NATO set them free.

exactly, it's worse now than before, and how many dead , 25K? I'm willing to bet it will be a cesspit for many years before getting back to Gaddaffi era level of dysfunctional function.

Laminations

AlekSmart wrote: »

NATO's little Libyan adventure/experiment has'nt ended yet,in fact I believe they'll have to return sooner rather than later,in an attempt to get Gadaffi's Libyan lid back on it's Libyan box.

An entire nation was liberated from Gadaffis dictatorial rule. It's stretching it to suggest they are all terrorists due to this horrible incident. Don't forget we got our freedom (in the republic at least) and 80 years on we have groups like RIRA blowing up places like Omagh. Should the lid be put back on our box??

Eggy Baby!

The second incident that made me wonder was Gaddiffi better left in charge was the destruction of a WWII graveyard by some of those so called freedom fighters .
These "freedom fighters" decided to destroy the gravestones since they showed crosses and they went at the one showing a star of David with great relish.

Not to mention the defacing of Ba'hai graveyards by Iranian government thugs..

Denerick

Border-Rat wrote: »

So the ousting of Gadaffi had nothing to do with his intention to establish a gold-backed Dinar. It was all just due to NATO's love of freedom and puppies and the disappearance of said gold just a coincidence. And he is the idiot?

Right.

I think you may have got lost on the way to conspiracy theory forum.

NATO intervened in Libya because Gafaffi was a loose cannon and it was official US policy for years to get rid of him, before the brief reapproachement in the noughties. They saw an opportunity to get rid of this madman, and their time was limited as Gadaffi was gaining ground on the rebels and preparing to over-run Benghazi. Of course there was business and strategic opportunities too - that oil was always going to be in safer hands in a nominally democratic and stable state. But your conspiracy about the gold backed dinar is just kooky, sorry. Not saying that isn't/wasn't was going to happen, but its an historical red herring and largely irrelevant to what actually happened.

JustinDee

cyberhog wrote: »

Gaddafi kept a lid on the crazies, NATO set them free.

A classic Pilgerism. Subjective opinion in extremis.
Make up your flipping minds. Is it noble to support or remove a dictator? Which dictators are the alleged good souls? Which are not?
"Sanction them . . . think of the children, don't sanction them . . . don't invade though . . . hey, there's a dictator killing his own etc blah blah . . ."

As conveniently tilted as the governments you post on (well, one in particular that you keep banging on about).

wes

Look like the reason for the attack may have been entirely different:

US probes deadly attack '9/11 link'

Looks like the attack in Libya might not have had nothing to do with the film, or as I have read suggested elsewhere, that they protest was used as cover for the attack.

I am sure we will know more, once investigations have had more time.

the_syco

SocSocPol wrote: »

to allow a post which portrays it as medievil and backward is highly insulting.

Free speech is good until it affects ye, is it? Or should we just ban all things that insult Mo Islamic stuff?

I'm sure the US shall find justice if it wants to...

Morpheus

This is crazy stuff...

think about this,

it has set a precedent, has nobody here considered the following implications?

it means that effectively right now someone could draw a picture that is insulting to one religion and post it on boards.ie or any other irish site and it probably most likely cause a diplomatic incident in some of the Irish embassys in these crazy states, possibly resulting in irish deaths and in terrorist groups targeting irish citizens from here on....

Jonny7

Problems at US Embassy in Yemen being reported now.

The film in question is apparently some 2 hour dubbed over hack job - anywhere actually tracked down the director yet? (so far appears to be under a fake name)

Dave!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Problems at US Embassy in Yemen being reported now.

The film in question is apparently some 2 hour dubbed over hack job - anywhere actually tracked down the director yet? (so far appears to be under a fake name)

Hopefully he does turn up with a knife in his chest a-la Theo Van Gogh :rolleyes:

Laminations

Morphéus wrote: »

This is crazy stuff...

think about this,

it has set a precedent, has nobody here considered the following implications?

it means that effectively right now someone could draw a picture that is insulting to one religion and post it on boards.ie or any other irish site and it probably most likely cause a diplomatic incident in some of the Irish embassys in these crazy states, possibly resulting in irish deaths and in terrorist groups targeting irish citizens from here on....

You're a bit late to the boat show. We know there are fundamentalists who will kill over insults to their religion and deities. We didn't need this latest example to prove that. Crazy people. Groups and individuals. Twisting a religion to enact violent revenge. It does happen quite a bit with Islam which should be a concern to all people (muslims included). Christianity has in the past also been used to justify great atrocities.

Jonny7

This is how South Park dealt with it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_controversies#Censorship_of_the_depiction_of_Muhammad

wes

California man confirms role in anti-Islam film

(Found the link via: Romney Jumps the Shark: Libya, Egypt and the Butterfly Effect)

Looks like the guy who made the film, tried to blame a Jewish film maker that doesn't exist, and he also lied to the cast about what was being made.

Either way, the reaction to the film is imho stupid, and if the killings were due to the film (as opposed to an Al Qaeda revenge attack as has been suggested either war) then it is doubly awful.

Pro American rallies in Benghazi:
'This Does Not Represent Us': Moving Photos of Pro-American Rallies in Libya

Shows that not all Libyan's supported the violence against the US consulate, as some have essentially suggested on here.

CptMackey

Think it proves that the world would be better off without religion. It's used to keep people down and to justify various atrocities. Christians were up to it. But now seems to be islams time to revert to the stone age.

Einhard

wes wrote: »

Pro American rallies in Benghazi:
'This Does Not Represent Us': Moving Photos of Pro-American Rallies in Libya

Shows that not all Libyan's supported the violence against the US consulate, as some have essentially suggested on here.

Don't let the reactionary Islamophobes hear you say that!

Manic Moran

Definitely starting to look like it was a well-executed operation, pre-planned. That the film had sparked protests was just a piece of incredible good fortune, either to be on the day originally planned given the 9/11 significance, or they did very well and accelerated their plan to take advantage of it.

That said, there is still the problem that there are groups of people who get angry enough to storm compounds because they feel insulted.

NTM

Kinski

Manic Moran wrote: »

That said, there is still the problem that there are groups of people who get angry enough to storm compounds because they feel insulted.

And people who go out of their way to insult them.

christmas2012

RTE are reporting that the US ambassador to Libya was amongst four people who were killed last night by a rampaging mob in Benghazi. The mob were protesting a movie shown in America depicting the prophet Muhammad.

I wonder how many of these people would be alive now if it wasn’t for NATO intervention last year after it looked like Gaddafi was going to turn the tide on the rebels and take back this very city.

The Taliban beheading people for dancing at a party. The Pakistanis wanting to lynch a reportedly disabled child for tearing pages of the Koran. Enough is enough. When is Islam going to emerge from Medieval times?

I dont think it will honestly happen in our lifetime,the religion is dominated purely by old clerics and imams,there is no room for ''moderates'' given the sheer nature of the religion itself,and those who feign moderation,are quick to fall back in line with the rest of them,out of fear,we see in western neighbourhoods in europe and the U.S of recent times.There are many cases of honour killings,and bad blood between siblings spilling over into killings over seemingly small social misdoings etc..

I dont think even in 100 years much will change,if you ever read the book,it would make it a LOT clearer why this will never happen in our lifetime,or the next..

Its a religion doomed to failure,by the very nature of it,its hard to moderate,how can you moderate for example: ''if you see an unbeliever in the street,force him/her into the narrowest alleyway,and slit their throat etc'',you cant really moderate that much,its still going to be a very hostile and hateful ideology..Even if you took out the throat slitting bit youre left with forcing the unbeliever into the narrowest alleyway - its still pretty hostile..
The whole religion revolves,the main themes of it,is 1) psychotic hatred for women 2) psychotic hatred for unbelievers or those of a non muslim faith 3) psychotic hatred for those who are black 4) psychotic hatred for apostates,those who left the faith.

If you take all that out,youre left with no book and no text,there have been some feminist moderates who have sought to change the book,and moderate it somewhat,and guess what - they got a littany of death threats and are living somewhere in europe according to ayaan ali hirsi,the woman who wrote the book infidel and got death threats for it.A book im reading at the moment..She has another book out in the book shelves in ireland called nomad.Im planning on reading that one next..

Denerick

Kinski wrote: »

And people who go out of their way to insult them.

Going out of your way to insult somebody is just bad manners, going out of your way to kill somebody is psychopathic. I really hope you aren't making excuses.

Frank Grimes

christmas2012 wrote: »

3) psychotic hatred for those who are black

Where are you getting this from? It's not standard fare for the generic anti-Islam stuff the rest of the post consists of, so I'm genuinely curious as to what the source is.

peace2804

Laminations wrote: »

I agree but also disagree. Islam doesn't allow or doesn't disallow anything. It, like any religion, can only be practised through someone's interpretations and teachings. In Catholicism they have a hierarchical church that interprets for many. Huge criticisms have been levelled at this church, its interpretation and rulings and even lapsed members (with count me out campaigns). In Islam there isn't such a hierarchy, it is far more fractured with Islamic sects, but there are Imams that interpret and teach, mostly males (a sexism Islam shares with Catholicism and other religions). So while there may not be a massive organisation (like the church) to blame there are imams and religious structures in Islam - it IS an organised religion. So there is scripture and then there is dogma. And there are some wholly crooked and evil Imams.

So Islam is not to blame, it only exists in people's interpretations of it. The people interpreting Islam to justify and spread their hate are to blame, and the teaching of Islam is twisted to political agendas in certain countries. Islam (or muslims if you wish as they are the living interpretation of the religion) does have a problem in certain parts of the world and generally in the fractured interpretations that exist. It has the good and evil of any organised religion. Every Muslim is not to blame just as every Libyan is not to blame.

Terrorists will always try and wrap their actions in some convenient flag, let's not fall for it.

To be honest with you, I agree with what you said but I don't understand this sentence: "Islam doesn't allow or doesn't disallow anything", in my opinion there are things that are allowed and things that are not allowed in Islam (just like any religion), and certainly the killing of people is not allowed.

There should be only one teaching of Islam, one teaching of Christianity and so on but the fact is there are always people twisting and changing religion and taking advantage of weak people or illiterate people (let's face it, the truth is the truth, in most of the Arab world nowadays there is at least 20% of illiterate people)

Talking about the movie (I watched the 13 min trailer, if I can call it trailer, in youtube) what is your opinion about it??

christmas2012

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? It's not standard fare for the generic anti-Islam stuff the rest of the post consists of so I'm genuinely curious as to what the source is.

I was reading in my book by ayaan ali hirsi about how the people of the muslim faith predominatly arab hate black people,and have this way of putting black people down,saying i wish he/she was lighter,they have other more crueler ways of doing it..

Her family used to work for this family in an arab country and they would regularly the wives would say really mean things to her,and there wasnt a lot she could do about it..In those countries you can be beheaded..

Frank Grimes

christmas2012 wrote: »

I was reading in my book by ayaan ali hirsi about how the people of the muslim faith predominatly arab hate black people,

Ok, so what you're actually talking about is certain Arabs and/or Muslims who are racist towards black people, rather than the religion itself - based on what you read in one book.

Denerick

christmas2012 wrote: »

I was reading in my book by ayaan ali hirsi about how the people of the muslim faith predominatly arab hate black people,and have this way of putting black people down,saying i wish he/she was lighter,they have other more crueler ways of doing it..

Her family used to work for this family in an arab country and they would regularly the wives would say really mean things to her,and there wasnt a lot she could do about it..In those countries you can be beheaded..

Would you get your information about German people from Mein Kampf? You're reading an hysterically over the top account from a woman who hails from a primitive tribal civilisation (Which happens to be Islamic) and then generalise an entire group of people. Ali Hirsi is a member of a dogmatically conservative organisation in the US, she is the cheerleader of Islamaphobes everywhere and radiates hatred and intolerance. And most important of all, her book is predominately read by people who merely want to confirm their own pre-existing prejudices. Try reading more widely. I'd recommend a great many histories of Islam, but I fear you wouldn't be overly interested.

Islam is an egalatarian religion by the way, its one of the reasons why it was adopted by so many black people in the first place (Think of the black nationalists in the US for an example)

peace2804

christmas2012 wrote: »

I dont think it will honestly happen in our lifetime,the religion is dominated purely by old clerics and imams,there is no room for ''moderates'' given the sheer nature of the religion itself,and those who feign moderation,are quick to fall back in line with the rest of them,out of fear,we see in western neighbourhoods in europe and the U.S of recent times.There are many cases of honour killings,and bad blood between siblings spilling over into killings over seemingly small social misdoings etc..

You are saying a lot of stuff, but you have it all wrong, there are lots of moderate muslims out there and they are accepted in most countries (Tarik Ramadan is just one example)

christmas2012 wrote: »

I dont think even in 100 years much will change,if you ever read the book,it would make it a LOT clearer why this will never happen in our lifetime,or the next..

I need to know where in the book you red that, just give me 2 or 3 examples.

I agree that we need more than 100 year to see a difference and to see changes, but in people and their behavior not in the religion and that's the challenge, let's face it, the Arab world is just like Europe in the 17th / 18th Century, and the Arab spring will not change these countries in few years but it will take decades.

christmas2012 wrote: »

Its a religion doomed to failure,by the very nature of it,its hard to moderate,how can you moderate for example: ''if you see an unbeliever in the street,force him/her into the narrowest alleyway,and slit their throat etc'',you cant really moderate that much,its still going to be a very hostile and hateful ideology..Even if you took out the throat slitting bit youre left with forcing the unbeliever into the narrowest alleyway - its still pretty hostile..

:eek::eek:, any proofs or texts from this religion or from the coran to back what you are saying?

christmas2012 wrote: »

The whole religion revolves,the main themes of it,is 1) psychotic hatred for women 2) psychotic hatred for unbelievers or those of a non muslim faith 3) psychotic hatred for those who are black 4) psychotic hatred for apostates,those who left the faith.

:eek::eek:same question than above, and please don't mention a book that was written by somebody, mention actual texts from this religion.

Kinski

Denerick wrote: »

Going out of your way to insult somebody is just bad manners, going out of your way to kill somebody is psychopathic. I really hope you aren't making excuses.

Going out of your way by blowing $100k (one figure I've seen quoted) on a film like that one is a lot more than bad manners; it's provocative. This was probably exactly the reaction they (and the Islamist and anti-Islamist extremists who have apparently kept spreading it until it went viral) were looking for.

Being offended by the contents of a film is obviously not a good reason to go on the rampage, but then I don't know of any good reasons to go on the rampage.

Denerick

Kinski wrote: »

Going out of your way by blowing $100k (one figure I've seen quoted) on a film like that one is a lot more than bad manners; it's provocative. This was probably exactly the reaction they (and the Islamist and anti-Islamist extremists who have apparently kept spreading it until it went viral) were looking for.

Being offended by the contents of a film is obviously not a good reason to go on the rampage, but then I don't know of any good reasons to go on the rampage.

Its irrelevant that a couple of private individuals made a film that offends some people. That is completely irrelevant. I fear for the future of humanity if this starts to become an excuse for political violence. Nobody really believes that the film itself caused this, it was manipulated by extremists in order to give them tactical cover and cause an international incident like this.

Einhard

christmas2012 wrote: »

I dont think it will honestly happen in our lifetime,the religion is dominated purely by old clerics and imams,there is no room for ''moderates'' given the sheer nature of the religion itself,and those who feign moderation,are quick to fall back in line with the rest of them,out of fear,we see in western neighbourhoods in europe and the U.S of recent times.

I think that Islam has problems with extremists, but I think that the problem is always dramatically overstated, and I think you're guilty of the same. Part of the problem is that peope always give most attention and credence to those who make the most noise, and so when a few hundred Muslims go crazy in Benghazi, all Muslims get tarred with the brush. There is a massive moderate minority in Islam which does not condone what happened, but because they don't (can't) make their opinions felt in the same way as the extremists, theirvoices are too often ignored. Today for example thousands took to the streets in Tripoli and Benghazi protesting against the killing of the ambassador, and do you think we heard about it? Not a chance. It's not sexy enough, and because people are generally not that interested in the region, or in a proper understandng of events, their response is reactionary and knee-jerk.

Think of it logically...at most a few thousand Muslims have so far reacted violently to this film. How on earth can anyone extrapolate an opinion on a billion Muslims from that tiny number. It makes absolutely no sense. More people in Ireland contrived in the abuse of children in Catholic institutions, and the cover up of that abuse, over recet decades, and yet if anyone used that to portray all Irish Catholics as Paedophiles or apologists for abuse, they'd be rightly laughed out of it. Yet when it comes to Muslims, it's entirely acceptable to condemn all on the basis of a tiny minority.

There are many cases of honour killings,and bad blood between siblings spilling
over into killings over seemingly small social misdoings etc..

There are honour killings and that's unfortunate, to be condemned, and something that Islam has to deal with. However, there are also such practices amongst Hindu communities in India and elsewhere, but funnily enough they rarely get mentioned. I suppose having one bogeyman is enough for most people.

Even when one looks at the shocking reaction to the Swedish and Danish cartoons of a few years back, one sees again that the size of the protests were tiny compared to the number of Muslims, but more significantly, that most of the protests were organised for political purposes. I mean, within a day or two, thousands of Libyans somehow managed to get their hands on Swedish and Danish flags? Sounds a bit fishy to me...and lo and behold, it turns out that the Gadaffi regime was stoing up the reaction in order to draw attention and anger from itself and onto an external source. The same happened in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and others. It's significant that these types of violent protests don't tend to happen in Indonesia or Turkey, two democratic and relatively liberal nations, which should be enough to show that quite often, the motivations behind them are political as much as religious. But, do people who condemn Islam and all Muslims consider this? Not a chance.

I dont think even in 100 years much will change,if you ever read the book,it
would make it a LOT clearer why this will never happen in our lifetime,or the
next..

It's funny, but Turkish citizens could have said the exact same thing about the Germans, Spanish, Greeks, Russians, Portugeuse (all Christians) as they wallowed u dner oppressive regimes while the Turks lived in a secular, democratic republic.

Its a religion doomed to failure,by the very nature of it,its hard to
moderate,how can you moderate for example: ''if you see an unbeliever in the
street,force him/her into the narrowest alleyway,and slit their throat etc'',you
cant really moderate that much,its still going to be a very hostile and hateful
ideology..Even if you took out the throat slitting bit youre left with forcing
the unbeliever into the narrowest alleyway - its still pretty hostile..

Have you ever read the Old Testament? Even the "liberal" New Testament plants a blood libel on the Jews which has been responsible for their persecution for 2000 years. Those in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.

Incidentally, I've read the Koran. No offence, but I suspect you haven't. You've patently gotten your snippet from a google search or an anti-Islam source. The context is entirely left out. The Koran explicitly states that, as Christians and Jews are fellow peoples of the book, they are to be protected and not harmed. In Islamic nations, such groups paid a special tax, and were, by and large, left alone. Hence, while the Jews were being thrown out of Iberia, Jewish communities flourished across North Africa and the Middle East. Hence the many old synagogues and Christian churches across the Muslim world, and the absolute lack of the same in the Christian world. The fact is that Muslims were always far more tolerant of difference than us Christians. Just consider the fact that Jew were only allowed back into England by Oliver Cromwell in the 1th century, after a millenium of living amongst Muslims, and one gets an idea of what I'm talking about.

The whole religion revolves,the main themes of it,is 1) psychotic hatred for
women 2) psychotic hatred for unbelievers or those of a non muslim faith 3)
psychotic hatred for those who are black 4) psychotic hatred for apostates,those
who left the faith.

That's not true at all. You have a very simple understanding of Islam I'm afraid. I've travelled through Muslim majority nations, and never felt any psychotic malevolence towards women, unbelevers or anyone else. Indeed, I found the people to be incredibly welcoming and friendly. Benazir Bhutto was one of the first female heads of state in the world...how would this be possible amongst a people allegedly so full of hatred towards women?

I

f you take all that out,youre left with no book and no text,there have been some
feminist moderates who have sought to change the book,and moderate it
somewhat,and guess what

How would you know? You clearly haven't read the Koran. Do yourself a favour...stop thinking what other people want you to think, and do a little research of your own. How can you pronounce so authoratitively on a book which you've never read?

- they got a littany of death threats and are living somewhere in europe
according to ayaan ali hirsi,the woman who wrote the book infidel and got death
threats for it.A book im reading at the moment..She has another book out in the
book shelves in ireland called nomad.Im planning on reading that one next..

I've read Ayaan Ali Hirsi too. She's an interesting and powerful write, but the fact that she's Muslim doesn't make her correct when she pronounces on that religion. She has been criticised for her generalisations by many people, including Western commentators with no affiliations to Islam. Lord Haw Haw didn't have the inside track on th British just because he was from that country, and Hirsi doesn't have the inside track on islam simply because she was born into that religion. I think if you read a bit more widely, including your history, and especially the Koran, you'd find your opinion changing.