U S Wants The Film "innocence Of Muslims" To Be Removed From Google

[ttelise]

Seems to me that religion has very little to do with the extreme actions of certain groups be they Muslim, Christian or atheist. They may claim religious motivation or assert religious belief as their motivation, but it all comes down to traits like human greed, pride, envy and etc. At least have some integrity if you are going to act like an idiot and be candid. Admit you enjoy causing fear in others, killing and maiming or just being a selfish greedy bastard instead of this standing up for my religion crap.

[Ulysses G.]

The solution is Truth.

The problem is that in an imperfect world "truth" is often a matter of opinion.

[koheesti]

There will always be those that who come up with a big conspiracy, but the point is, he has broken the conditions of his probation and he does pose a danger to others. He has misled the people who performed in the film for one and I think they could be in danger.

It also either directly or indirectly allowed the film to be ascribed to be directed and funded by Jews. That is potentially very dangerous. I would also not particularly like to be a Coptic Christian in Egypt in the best of times, but certainly not at this particular time.

The film itself presents a danger to a lot of people. I am all for freedom of speech, including the right of people to make poor films like this one, but using deception to point to other groups who had very little to do with it is wrong and his probation was rightfully revoked.

yeah, but the timing is really bad. After all the demands from Muslims and the president of Egypt to act, Obama gives a speech at the UN slamming people who criticize Mohammed and a couple days later they throw the book at this clown. It DOES look bad.

[Neurath]

I seem to recall that infidels are not highly regarded in some quarters. Aren't they also known as Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religious persuasion not mentioned here?

Don't the Muslims say that the infidels should convert or be killed?

Isn't this incitement to religious hatred and violence?

I find this offensive. I believe everyone should have the freedom to believe (or disbelieve) as they please.

If you are offended by the movie don't watch the bl**dy thing.

No, People of the Book, Christians & Jews, are not Infidels in Islam and the Koran incorporates the prophets in the Old and New testaments. The Infidels were people who were polytheistic, such as Animists. I would assume Mohammed would not have any exposure to the Buddhist and Hindu religions

Infidels and those of an atheistic persuasion. Not particularly loved in the US either.

Minimum number of US States whose constitutions forbid atheists from holding public office: 6

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

I seem to recall that infidels are not highly regarded in some quarters. Aren't they also known as Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religious persuasion not mentioned here?

Don't the Muslims say that the infidels should convert or be killed?

Isn't this incitement to religious hatred and violence?

I find this offensive. I believe everyone should have the freedom to believe (or disbelieve) as they please.

If you are offended by the movie don't watch the bl**dy thing.

No, People of the Book, Christians & Jews, are not Infidels in Islam and the Koran incorporates the prophets in the Old and New testaments. The Infidels were people who were polytheistic, such as Animists. I would assume Mohammed would not have any exposure to the Buddhist and Hindu religions

Infidels and those of an atheistic persuasion. Not particularly loved in the US either.

Minimum number of US States whose constitutions forbid atheists from holding public office: 6

would that include agnostics!

[simple1]

@theycallmescooter got to give it to you, certainly not slow in coming forward; do you read Nietzsche?

[Neurath]

I seem to recall that infidels are not highly regarded in some quarters. Aren't they also known as Christians, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and any other religious persuasion not mentioned here?

Don't the Muslims say that the infidels should convert or be killed?

Isn't this incitement to religious hatred and violence?

I find this offensive. I believe everyone should have the freedom to believe (or disbelieve) as they please.

If you are offended by the movie don't watch the bl**dy thing.

No, People of the Book, Christians & Jews, are not Infidels in Islam and the Koran incorporates the prophets in the Old and New testaments. The Infidels were people who were polytheistic, such as Animists. I would assume Mohammed would not have any exposure to the Buddhist and Hindu religions

Infidels and those of an atheistic persuasion. Not particularly loved in the US either.

Minimum number of US States whose constitutions forbid atheists from holding public office: 6

would that include agnostics!

Probably not. They'd just be forbidden from being sure that they do.

[thaibeachlovers]

As asked on another thread talking about conflict in the Deep South of Thailand. Easy to say faith is the blind leading the blind/using outmoded interpretation of scripture to manipulate/ the State using power play tactics etc; don't disagree. But what's your solution to the problem?

I wrote a long reply that would have been 'controversial' but I don't need to be as directly honest to give a truthful answer.

The solution is Truth.

It's like Education without the propaganda. It's Parenting without the Denial. It's Caring without the emotionally degrading patronising. It's Selfish Pursuit of Happiness without the religious Orwellian reversal of...everything. This is a confused world of slaves in denial; living in Shame when there is only Embarrassment in Insanity, surviving Private lives of Deceit, Lying to Others to keep the peace, Lying to Those we care about to protect their imagined feelings, Lying to children to protect them from trauma / Reality, Lying our moronic faces into the dust in our obsession with Protection Rackets. Endless lying to our Selves. If clinics weren't staffed by the Insane, we'd all be certifiably sectionable.

The solution is Truth. Unemotional disclosure.

But we're snivelling little deceit-obsessed vermin. Two-faced hypocrites, bi-polar moody; as transparently inhumane as any sociopath but we've fooled our Selves into thinking we're fooling everyone when the truth is simply that no one could care less. Who cares! We're careless. Carefree! Why wouldn't we be? We're incapable of acting in our own best interests. That would make too much sense. That would be intelligently Selfish. On paper, we'd be Sane. It'd be Utopia but everyone knows that Utopia is a pipe-dream.

That's what billions of humans reduced into beasts of (emotional) burden have been led to believe. So this...nightmare is our 'Reality' instead.

You're talking about conflict-resolution which is tantamount to redundancy in this world of conflict-creation, courtesy of our shrewd diplomatic deceit. Parents just lie to their children from age 0, emotionally degrade them, beat and punish them to 'teach' them lessons (that's how good dogs are trained), raise them with emotive appeals and non-stop sleaze. Parents corrupt their kids in filthy ways like telling them how Special they are, how Lovable, we're all adorable Princesses who don't have to contribute or trade...if presentable enough (what a dream!), the prettiest inflatable dolls can skatz through life as a model leech, on their back or walking smartly, dancing up a pole or just bartering emotional currency and dangled favours. Trading in sympathy. Why, for as long as she Pleases!

Hollow, character-less, shells of humans; incapable of pleasing when all they want to do is please with creepy cosmetic deceit. I'm talking about both genders. They have no sense of Self; everyone's obsessed with being a leech. Dream big! That's not in their best interests; it's as demented as the misogyny that created this filthy needy dependancy. Try paying a girl with love when she's attempting to parley "doing what she wants to do" into something insane like a legal / social contract designed to 'catch' a host to lean on, for life. Forcing someone to care when they don't want to stay would be insane for one day. Trying to force it for life? Heaven help those pitiful things, but it can't be a pleasant environment...domestically.

The solution is Truth. But we lie in this insane world. It's just what we do. We'll lie our way straight to Happiness if we're not careful.

It's as close as this race will ever get. Some long overdue Pain Relief. The solution is Truth but we can't handle it. I know you're an exception. So am I! We're happy.

We're the best God damned slaves this side of the galaxy.

Humans can't handle the TRUTH.

We might have left the caves thousands of years ago, but mentally and emotionally we're still afraid of the "outside" and seek someone, something, anything that will save us from the unknown, even if it involves wearing a funny hat.

I certainly don't think that the film should be removed, and if it gets up the noses of those that think it's OK to kill other people over a film or a book, I say play it on tv everyday.

Mockery is the best way to deal with intolerance.

[Morch]

Wonder if they'll take on Facebook next:

Hundreds of Muslims in Bangladesh burned at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists on Sunday after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam, police and residents said.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2012/09/30/bdesh-muslim-protesters-torch-buddhist-temples-over-facebook-photo/

[Credo]

It would seem that it is sort of a 'Them Against the World' sort of thing. They might be wise to pick their battles a little more carefully.

[Steely Dan]

Wonder if they'll take on Facebook next:

Hundreds of Muslims in Bangladesh burned at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists on Sunday after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam, police and residents said.

http://blogs.reuters...facebook-photo/

Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. Samuel Huntington - The clash of civilisations.

But as with truth such theories have to be silenced or denied.

[Morch]

Wonder if they'll take on Facebook next:

Hundreds of Muslims in Bangladesh burned at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists on Sunday after complaining that a Buddhist man had insulted Islam, police and residents said.

http://blogs.reuters...facebook-photo/

Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. Samuel Huntington - The clash of civilisations.

But as with truth such theories have to be silenced or denied.

Take it a few hundred years back, change it to Christianity and it's the same thing.

Most monotheistic religions take a while to come to terms with the notion of tolerance.

[koheesti]

Take it a few hundred years back, change it to Christianity and it's the same thing.

Most monotheistic religions take a while to come to terms with the notion of tolerance.

It's not quite the same, and much worse today. Two hundered years ago you didn't have people attacked and killed by religious extremists for something minor that happened on the other side of the world. Back then pretty much everyone was intolerant. Nowadays, it seems the followers of a certain religion are way ahead in the area of killing over an offense to their religion. Of course, there are exceptions but we all know where the majority of the violent intolerance is coming from.

[KKvampire]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

[koheesti]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

Killing people is immensely worse than burning a book...well, at least where I'm from.

[Jingthing]

No fan of right wing fundamentalist American Christian preachers, but you can count the number on one hand of those who are actively burning (or threatening to burn) the Koran. Actually, ONE man I think. However, yes, Islamophobia exists.

[KKvampire]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

Killing people is immensely worse than burning a book...well, at least where I'm from.

Ah playing with words now. planting the seeds of intolerance without saying "kill" is often their game. It's called "Loading the gun without firing the bullet".

How many times have I heard it even against the President of the United States.. Quote " He's not even a Christian he's a Muslim" A lie in the first and then attacking another religion claiming "yours" is better. All in one Bigoted sentence.

[Scott]

I suggest you keep to the topic and refrain from comments directed at other posters.

[Morch]

Take it a few hundred years back, change it to Christianity and it's the same thing.

Most monotheistic religions take a while to come to terms with the notion of tolerance.

It's not quite the same, and much worse today. Two hundered years ago you didn't have people attacked and killed by religious extremists for something minor that happened on the other side of the world. Back then pretty much everyone was intolerant. Nowadays, it seems the followers of a certain religion are way ahead in the area of killing over an offense to their religion. Of course, there are exceptions but we all know where the majority of the violent intolerance is coming from.

Islam showed up about 600 years after Christianity, not 200.

The relative tolerance shown by Christianity today took a while to take root, and has a lot to do with other factors (social, economical, political) then the religion itself.

Internet and other "instant" information technology is a new development - back then, it would take a while for new to travel from one side of the globe to another.

[Ulysses G.]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

There are a few Christian pastors who burn the koran and preach hate in the U.S, but very few. There is no comparison percentage-wise.

[KKvampire]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

There are a few Christian pastors who burn the koran and preach hate in the U.S, but very few. There is no comparison percentage-wise.

Oh So now it's there are a bigger percentage of Muslims (is that a majority as some in the US Believe) who preach hate than there are Christians.? Dancing on the head of a pin arent we. Unless you want to condemn ALL of a religion

[Scott]

If you are making a point, then do so. If you are trying to bait another poster, then I suggest you re-think what your are doing.

5) Not to post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling.Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[koheesti]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

Killing people is immensely worse than burning a book...well, at least where I'm from.

Ah playing with words now. planting the seeds of intolerance without saying "kill" is often their game. It's called "Loading the gun without firing the bullet".

How many times have I heard it even against the President of the United States.. Quote " He's not even a Christian he's a Muslim" A lie in the first and then attacking another religion claiming "yours" is better. All in one Bigoted sentence.

So now Madonna is a bigot? She recently called Obama the "black Muslim in the White House" and her fans cheered in acceptance.

[Steely Dan]

There are many Fundamentalist so called"Christians" in the US. Intolerant pastors who burn the koran and preach hatred, fear, to those who want to believe them . People in Glass houses ....... etc

Killing people is immensely worse than burning a book...well, at least where I'm from.

Ah playing with words now. planting the seeds of intolerance without saying "kill" is often their game. It's called "Loading the gun without firing the bullet".

How many times have I heard it even against the President of the United States.. Quote " He's not even a Christian he's a Muslim" A lie in the first and then attacking another religion claiming "yours" is better. All in one Bigoted sentence.

Planting the seeds of intolerance eh? Like the Danes did with cartoons or the Nigerians did holding a miss World contest, or some idiot did making a crappy film, or the Buddhists and Hindus in Bangladesh apparently did with some images on facebook. We sure live in an intolerant world, if you are an Islamic fanatic.

[koheesti]

Take it a few hundred years back, change it to Christianity and it's the same thing.

Most monotheistic religions take a while to come to terms with the notion of tolerance.

It's not quite the same, and much worse today. Two hundered years ago you didn't have people attacked and killed by religious extremists for something minor that happened on the other side of the world. Back then pretty much everyone was intolerant. Nowadays, it seems the followers of a certain religion are way ahead in the area of killing over an offense to their religion. Of course, there are exceptions but we all know where the majority of the violent intolerance is coming from.

Islam showed up about 600 years after Christianity, not 200.

The relative tolerance shown by Christianity today took a while to take root, and has a lot to do with other factors (social, economical, political) then the religion itself.

Internet and other "instant" information technology is a new development - back then, it would take a while for new to travel from one side of the globe to another.

I know when Islam came about. They cannot use the excuse that they are a "young" religion therefore must be expected to behave uncivilized. Christians took a long time to get over their violent ways towards "non-believers" but there is no reason at all that Muslims are 600 years behind Christians on this issue. In the modern world, with modern technologies and communication, they can get up to speed with civilization much faster. It took man thousands of years to figure out how to fly, then about 60 years to get to the moon. If they don't want to catch up, we shouldn't go backwards (ban free speech, etc) just to make them better.

[Morch]

Take it a few hundred years back, change it to Christianity and it's the same thing.

Most monotheistic religions take a while to come to terms with the notion of tolerance.

It's not quite the same, and much worse today. Two hundered years ago you didn't have people attacked and killed by religious extremists for something minor that happened on the other side of the world. Back then pretty much everyone was intolerant. Nowadays, it seems the followers of a certain religion are way ahead in the area of killing over an offense to their religion. Of course, there are exceptions but we all know where the majority of the violent intolerance is coming from.

Islam showed up about 600 years after Christianity, not 200.

The relative tolerance shown by Christianity today took a while to take root, and has a lot to do with other factors (social, economical, political) then the religion itself.

Internet and other "instant" information technology is a new development - back then, it would take a while for new to travel from one side of the globe to another.

I know when Islam came about. They cannot use the excuse that they are a "young" religion therefore must be expected to behave uncivilized. Christians took a long time to get over their violent ways towards "non-believers" but there is no reason at all that Muslims are 600 years behind Christians on this issue. In the modern world, with modern technologies and communication, they can get up to speed with civilization much faster. It took man thousands of years to figure out how to fly, then about 60 years to get to the moon. If they don't want to catch up, we shouldn't go backwards (ban free speech, etc) just to make them better.

I don't see exactly why "they cannot use this excuse", or for that matter, why is there "no reason at all" that they are behind on that issue - just because you say so?

The role of technology and communication might not be productive in this regard. Much easier for ideas to flow and be exchanged, true. Also much easier for propaganda, misinformation and doctrine to be spread.

Modern technology and more complex forms of social order (example, democracy) can be superficially applied to any society/country/civilization - takes a long while for them to be truly incorporated.

Not quite sure about the "we shouldn't go backwards" bit, as it was never suggested in my posts (in fact, voted for the Nays in our poll).

Also, the above stance was not meant as excuse (it is rarely used by Muslims, anyway), more a way of taking a long term perspective on things. While it doesn't offer any instant solutions, it may pay to look back on history and reflect on factors leading to a more relaxed religious stance.

[koheesti]

It's not quite the same, and much worse today. Two hundered years ago you didn't have people attacked and killed by religious extremists for something minor that happened on the other side of the world. Back then pretty much everyone was intolerant. Nowadays, it seems the followers of a certain religion are way ahead in the area of killing over an offense to their religion. Of course, there are exceptions but we all know where the majority of the violent intolerance is coming from.

Islam showed up about 600 years after Christianity, not 200.

The relative tolerance shown by Christianity today took a while to take root, and has a lot to do with other factors (social, economical, political) then the religion itself.

Internet and other "instant" information technology is a new development - back then, it would take a while for new to travel from one side of the globe to another.

I know when Islam came about. They cannot use the excuse that they are a "young" religion therefore must be expected to behave uncivilized. Christians took a long time to get over their violent ways towards "non-believers" but there is no reason at all that Muslims are 600 years behind Christians on this issue. In the modern world, with modern technologies and communication, they can get up to speed with civilization much faster. It took man thousands of years to figure out how to fly, then about 60 years to get to the moon. If they don't want to catch up, we shouldn't go backwards (ban free speech, etc) just to make them better.

I don't see exactly why "they cannot use this excuse", or for that matter, why is there "no reason at all" that they are behind on that issue - just because you say so?

The role of technology and communication might not be productive in this regard. Much easier for ideas to flow and be exchanged, true. Also much easier for propaganda, misinformation and doctrine to be spread.

Modern technology and more complex forms of social order (example, democracy) can be superficially applied to any society/country/civilization - takes a long while for them to be truly incorporated.

Not quite sure about the "we shouldn't go backwards" bit, as it was never suggested in my posts (in fact, voted for the Nays in our poll).

Also, the above stance was not meant as excuse (it is rarely used by Muslims, anyway), more a way of taking a long term perspective on things. While it doesn't offer any instant solutions, it may pay to look back on history and reflect on factors leading to a more relaxed religious stance.

Because I say so, yes, and because it's true (I also say the Sun rises in the East). Look, these people can claim that,"Oooo, please allow us to chop off the heads of infidels and stone gays and raped women to death because, after all, our religion is only 1400 years old" and some people can accept it until their turns come, but I for one don't think we should.

True, technology makes it easier to spread propaganda, but it also makes it easier to refute.

I didn't intend to suggest that you specifically in the "we shouldn't go backwards" comment. It was meant generally that these people are behind us as far as developed civilization goes (in all facets - socially, economically, technologically, etc) and just because they throw temper tantrums we shouldn't let them have their way. We need to put them over the knee and spank them some more...or, put them in the Timeout Chair in the corner of the room for a bit.

BTW - I wasn't disagreeing with the parallels you drew between the violent Christians of the past and today's Muslims, I was just saying it wasn't exactly the same and that the modern religious nuts have more opportunities to learn different, more peaceful ways than their counterparts hundreds of years ago.

[Morch]

Again, I cannot offhand recall any prominent Muslim thinker upholding this take on things - it would amount to admitting some sort of inferiority in relation to other religions, not exactly an acceptable argument from from their point of view.

Nowhere did I say that radical Muslims need to be accommodated when resorting to violence. The point was merely that if you look back on history, these kinds of changes take a long time to come about. Looking at it from this perspective, it might not be very realistic to expect the situation to change for the better anytime soon - not through Islam "shaping up", nor through any course of action taken by western countries.

This is not to say that violence should be accepted, or that nothing at all can be done about it. That "putting over the knee" approach might do very well on the home front of some western countries. When it comes to international relationships it is of course somewhat more complicated.

[koheesti]

Again, I cannot offhand recall any prominent Muslim thinker upholding this take on things - it would amount to admitting some sort of inferiority in relation to other religions, not exactly an acceptable argument from from their point of view.

I agree, the leaders are in a tough position but they were put there by other Muslim leaders, weren't they? We have a similar situation in the West, the leader of one political party has to be careful what they say because the other guy will try to use it against him. The big difference, our politicians are worried about losing votes, the prominent Muslim thinker has to worry about losing his head.

Nowhere did I say that radical Muslims need to be accommodated when resorting to violence. The point was merely that if you look back on history, these kinds of changes take a long time to come about. Looking at it from this perspective, it might not be very realistic to expect the situation to change for the better anytime soon - not through Islam "shaping up", nor through any course of action taken by western countries.

And my point is that yes, looking back in history change took time, but we needn't expect that today. Back then, people were had more restrictions/limitations due to the "technology" at the time. Positive change today should be happening much more rapidly...they shouldn't be regressing.

This is not to say that violence should be accepted, or that nothing at all can be done about it. That "putting over the knee" approach might do very well on the home front of some western countries. When it comes to international relationships it is of course somewhat more complicated.

I liken "putting over the knee" to military action. We've done that to some extent but it hasn't worked as far as changing hearts and minds that's why I said "put them in the Timeout Chair" which is more ignoring them until they are ready to play nice with others.

Putting over the knee - I would argue in a historical sense we are using military action in only a tiny, tiny way and that's why it is ineffective. Back in Mohammed's (PBUH) day, war meant killing everything and every one of the enemy and making slaves of any left over. Nowadays, we try surgical strikes and compensate collateral damage victim. Genghis Khan is laughing in his tomb. Maybe the region would change if we had a more historical approach to war? If people like Saddam could keep people from getting out of hand by being tough, imagine wiping out whole cities, killing millions, taking resources, and enslaving everyone else? They'd be sheep and we could choose which Imams were in the mosques and control what they were saying. Alas, being civilized comes with a different set of rules, and despite the problems we have today, that's better than the old way.

[Steely Dan]

Here is a viewpoint as to what is happening, just who is actually getting spanked?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49909

In theory America will be an independent country, in practice it will be a vassal state of the Muslim world whose displays of outrage will be our law telling us what we can and cannot say, what we can and cannot think, and what we can and cannot do.

This is the typical kind of bargain that decadent empires make with the barbarous warlords on their doorstep. The empire will keep its splendor and its titles, while the barbarians will tell the empire what to do.