Muslim group places bounty of of 5,00,000 Rs. on the head of author critical of Islam

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Originally posted by aneeshm
Remind me of the last time the Communist party was elected to power in the USSR in a free and fair election, with a credible opposition also existing, would you?

You have just surpassed yourself, Aneeshm.

Well? When was it?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Originally posted by Straybow
Where is the committee of 150 scholars, doctors, lawyers, and engineers who release a condemnation of this fatwah because they see themselves as the true voice of Islam? Those who hold such views know they are in the tiniest of minorities.

Why would they? Do I issue a statement every ****ing time the Pope says something retarded? Sometimes you just go on with life - what you guys are doing is projecting your own fictitious problem on them and assuming their "silence" is complacency, while in reality this silence is a) not as much of a silence you think it is and b) the fact that you don't have to take responsibility for everything that happens on a ****ing daily basis.

Let me get this straight. If you were a Muslim and somebody was issuing death threats in the name of your religion, you would just shrug and say it doesn't matter. Even if it were a group in your own country, even in your own city. That's what it would take to create this situation.

They don't have a Pope. They have community-based organization and a thousand years of consensus teachings. The people who are in positions of community leadership are the ones on these committees.

The people who strenuously disagree with the wackos are watered-down versions with western educations who aren't accepted as mainstream by the mainstream of Islam.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Clearly the USSR was a tyranny because the people wanted it

In Aceh, Indonesia, they used to have "secular" law, and now the government has allowed them to have "sharia law" because that is what the people wanted, which means, hitting muslim women with sticks who dont wear a veil in public, not allowing muslims to convert to other religions, etc etc

Muslim countries, which started as relatively secular after de-colonization, with nationalism, pan arabism and socialism as the main ideas, have gotten more conservative and religious and tyrannical as the years passed, because that is what the people of muslim countries wanted, muslims want sharia! (is it that hard to understand?)
or at least an important minority willing to resort to violence and make a big mess wants that, and the rest of muslims are indifferent.

Countries which started out with napoleonic constitutions, ended up accepting islamic law as the most important source off jurisprudence, In Malaysia, a "moderate" muslim country, muslims are not allowed to convert to another religion.

This isnt only one country (like the soviet union, which by the way fell), these are dozens of countries, many of them with elections, and even if they can only choose "islamists", they often prefer the conservative over the reformist.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I'm not questioning the use of Wiki, I'm questioning the sources of the Wiki article in question. Try again, harder.

As for the "presence" or "absence" of debate and culture in Muslim countries, I'm not about to positively demonstrate it - it's something you can observe by reading sources with an open mind. If you're too asinine to get an education on your own, the best I can do is feel sorry for you.

Are you only capable of excuses and insults? There are a few dl's here with more entertainment value and information than you post.


Oh let me predict your reponse. Throw in a few big words to make yourself look smart, lay down an excuse to cover yourself, than insult me to round things off.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Straybow
Poll? Who cares... Where is even the one, loud, unequivocal voice of condemnation from a native, "mainstream" Muslim?

AFAICT "mainstream"? As opposed to what, a Druze? A shia?

Im not sure what the qualifiers mean.

id suggest Zalmay Khalilzad, or Hamid Kharzai. Do Afghans not count? Im sure I could come up with some more pretty quickly.

Heck, there was one Imam in Italy, who thought that the Koran showed the Jews have a right to the land of Israel. I guess I will have to go look him up.

This guy:
http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/..._Viewpoint.asp

Correct: Khalilzad, Kharzai, or a scholar in Italy don't count as "mainstream" Islam. The same way the CofE Bishops and Ivy League religion professors who don't believe in the virgin birth and divinity of Christ don't count as "mainstream" Christian voices.

The average Muslim would rather believe that 9/11 was a Mossad or CIA plot (or both) than face the ugly truth that 19 of their own fellow Muslims are murderous wackos. Much less the tens of thousands of jihadis who feel called to martyrdom.

Where is the committee of 150 scholars, doctors, lawyers, and engineers who release a condemnation of this fatwah because they see themselves as the true voice of Islam? Those who hold such views know they are in the tiniest of minorities.

1. Its not for me to decide whether the COE is authentic Christianity or not, seeing as I aint got no stake in the virgin birth. Ditto wrt Muslims.
2. What core Muslim religious belief do Khalilzad, Kharzai, etc not hold?
3. A committee of 150? Well thats pretty far from the one loud unequivocal voice.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


You can do better than quoting Wikipedia quoting the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, an article by Newt Gingrich, and an obscure Reuters release from 2000, can't you?

Iran's position on Israel is that of the Arab League. The president does not get a say on foreign politics.

CNN:

Iran leader urges destruction of 'cancerous' Israel
December 15, 2000
Web posted at: 6:33 AM EST (1133 GMT)


TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Friday for the destruction of Israel, describing it as a "cancerous tumor" in the Middle East.

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

"The Palestinian issue is not an internal Israeli matter. It involves the interests of the whole Islamic world, including Iran. All should strive to return that piece of land to Islamic hands."

Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable":

"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews.

"No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians," the ayatollah said in remarks broadcast on state radio.

He praised the 11-week Palestinian uprising against Israel, in which more than 320 people have been killed, mainly Palestinians.

"The new Palestinian generation has learned that struggle is the way to victory, not negotiations," Khamenei said, referring to the deadlocked U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace process.

[lord of the mark]

"The average Muslim would rather believe that 9/11 was a Mossad or CIA plot (or both) than face the ugly truth that 19 of their own fellow Muslims are murderous wackos"


I dont deny that. I do assert however that there is a minority, not all that small, that does denounce AQ terrorism against the US, and a minority, however small and beleagured, that even denounces terrorism against Israel.

"For the sake of one righteous man ........"

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
$10,000? Anyone know this chick's last known location?

its 11,000$, and we don't even have pictures of her.

[Fake Boris]

You are correct that Khamenei has sometimes held (though not repeatedly) radical talks at partisan rallies, but that has not affected behind the scene diplomacy.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Sprayber


Are you only capable of excuses and insults? There are a few dl's here with more entertainment value and information than you post.


Oh let me predict your reponse. Throw in a few big words to make yourself look smart, lay down an excuse to cover yourself, than insult me to round things off.

Let me reassess:

LOTM has invoked the following sources:

a) a Zionist think thank
b) an opinion piece by a Republican congressman
c) an obscure release from a news agency that is known to quote Iranian officials out of context. Khamenei's discourse at the partisan rally has been made once, and is not in accordance with any official Iranian diplomacy.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You have just surpassed yourself, Aneeshm.

You did not answer my question.

[Fake Boris]

Read again the post you were responding to, you'll understand why.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You are correct that Khamenei has sometimes held (though not repeatedly) radical talks at partisan rallies, but that has not affected behind the scene diplomacy.

Lets see, behind the scenes diplomacy, by its nature, leaves no public record. To see what the various branches of the Iranian state have done behind the scenes, Id have to have recourse to pundits, think tanks, and the like.

May I suggest that at this point your assertion is not falsifiable?


I would ask however if Iran has supported the Saudi initiative, which, flawed though I believe it to be, at least suggests an interest in negotiations.

I will grant you that Khatami, in HIS period as president, gave hints of some openness to negotiations. However I see no evidence that HIS position was supported by the Ayatollahs, any more than there is evidence that Ahmadinajads is. Rather less, in fact.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Let me reassess:

LOTM has invoked the following sources:

a) a Zionist think thank

Its hardly surprising that the people who follow Iranian positions on Israel most closely are the Israelis. If I cant use any Israeli source, that places a severe limitation on what I can cite.

[RGBVideo]

Hello, Oncle Boris

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Originally posted by aneeshm

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
You have just surpassed yourself, Aneeshm.

You did not answer my question.

Read again the post you were responding to, you'll understand why.

Actually, I don't understand either. Looks to me you got pwned with your pants down and are now trying to confuse the issue with thinly veiled personal attacks.

Go ahead, do tell us: when did the Russian people elect communists to lead them? I hope you're not one of those people who believes the election methods of Stalin which always resulted in 100% of the votes going to communists represented the ultimate will of the People.