It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interesting Article on Muslim hyprocracy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
boortz.com...

Interesting on what some (not all) Muslims get upset over.

So is their lastest 'outrage' really over some cartoons? or is their much more to it? Are they using this as an excuse to act out?




posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
It's pointless and amateur. If you have to use these cartoons to open up discussion on what Muslims find acceptable then you have truly lost your balls.

Drawing Mohammed is blasphemous to Islam. And in many cases the cartoons are not relevant to discussion. I --being a journalist-- support freedom of the press but I don't support the decision to publish these cartoons over and over again.


Many have failed to realise that the circulation of papers printing these cartoons have gone up substantially.
Oh yeah, I'm buying the journalistic solidarity angle.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Or possibly an interesting insight into the pysche of the person that wrote the article.


TD

PS I believe it's the job of a free press to occasionally offend people, and am glad the Danish Government has tried to expalin to various regimes that they're not really able to interfere with an independent newspaper, but the whoever wrote that link has........issues.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Is it wrong to find the hyprocracy?


Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged



I think this shows alot about he muslim community and their mentality.

Is the ability of the free-press supposed to change because some (muslims) get offended? This is a poor excuse to justify barbaric behavior.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
so are you saying that cartoons such as these - www.calvin.edu... were ok to publish because they didnt incite racial hatred?

should the jews in germany not have been worried for themselves because 'they cant take a joke'?

do you see history repeating itself (inserting 'muslim' instead of 'jew')?



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Do you even know any Muslims? There are plenty of Muslims who condemn and express outrage at the barbarity of these actions.

By the way, Muslims are not just "Muslims." That's like saying that if you are Christian you condone Pat Robertson.

And apparently this guy Boortz has been called a "Preacher of Hate" before.

I agree with Nerdling, Free Press, but some Europeans are acting like schoolchildren chanting "Na, na, na, na, na, na, na" by reprinting those cartoons over and over again.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   


Is it wrong to find the hyprocracy?
Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.


www.muhajabah.com...


Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

Link to the news item and I'll look for a repudiation by the local government or the local media.


Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.


Condemnation by Indonesian President.

www.whyislam.org...



Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.


Need a news link and I'll try to find a condemnation.



Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

CNN showing Egyptians marching against terror
transcripts.cnn.com...




A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.



No link - post me the news story and I'll try to find condemnation.


Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.


Washington Times Headline - muslim condemnation

washingtontimes.com...


You know, I could go on with this, but I just feel a bit degraded by even having to refute this post.

I'd have more respect for the author if he came out and said, 'Screw it, I hate Arabs'. Posting poorly-researched garbage that someone with five minutes with Google can refute is just pathetic.

TD



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
And incidentally, if you are going to start a thread attacking an entire religion, at least spell it correctly.

TD

hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


hypocrisy

n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
The 'cartoons' you linked to have nothing incommon with these 'Muslim' ones.

These disputed cartoons do not depict muslims being subjegated or harmed, unlike the jewish ones for germany.

I'm not saying that these cartoons are in the best taste but the reaction over these is ridiculous. In a free society even the unpopular have the right to express themselves. When there is a piece of art, like the virgin mary covered in elephant dung, yes the christian community got upset....very upset.....but there wasn't riots or threats of death or boycotts.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Muslims respect the Christian religion because Christianity is part of Islam. Christians, I'm assuming, don't care to respect Islam because they rejected Muhammad. I doubt you will see many, if any, Muslim cartoons making fun of Jesus, because Jesus is part of Islam.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I think the point of this thread is to examine the very cartoon that have caused such a storm. The cartoons as we all know were meant to caricaturize the Muslim religion. To say the least, this has accomplished that goal. But what is more important is to note the real question this raises and that is, To what extent does a free society have to compromise its freedoms to satisfy a particular religion ??
This apparently has not been touched by any of the posters so far.
I would also like to point out the very threatening and aggressive response to the mild criticism, which I find shocking. If merely humor can amount to this kind of an outrage by the Muslims worldwide how would the reaction be to underground anti-islamists and their propaganda ?
If cartoons can draw death threats from across the Muslim world to the European nation, with HAMAS having armed rallies and burning countries flags for the actions of their news media, then I think the real problem is not with the cartoons themselves but with the Muslim world in general.
I think we should turn this question on its head and ask ourselves this, what if in the middle east we come to notice a popular media outlet having fun at the Christian religions expense then how would we react here in the West ??
Or let us say some other religion like Buddhists were caricaturized in the Middle East through innocuous cartoons then how would they react ??
In both these cases would we see a mob of atleast a thousand strong marching in our cities brandishing automatic weapons and burning flags of the nations in which these articles were published ?? Would the Buddhists resort to threats of attacks on the middle eastern nations ??
To both questions it would be safe to say- No.

Then why is the Muslim reaction to this so caustic ? Is it that they love god more than the rest of the world does ? Or is it that they are insecure about their religion and thus react violently to even mild provocation ?
Would it be also safe to reason that the Muslims of the Arab world now truly realize the power of terrorism and know that they West is truly petrified about their ability to wield it with ease. Are they taking advantage of out fears ?

Let each one of us see what exactly is the cause of this Storm and let us consider how our community would react had these cartoons been targeted at our faith. So here you go, examine the cause for the outrage :
Provocation ???

Having seen this I think we should dwell on them a moment and imagine if these things are worth of such a fuss and what would our reaction be towards these cartoons had they been directed at our faith.
Anti-JEWISH
Anti-Christian

And In the end I would like to ask : Does the reaction merit the cause ???
I think it is safe to say that my proclivity towards this issue is quiet clear.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
I think the point of this thread is to examine the very cartoon that have caused such a storm. The cartoons as we all know were meant to caricaturize the Muslim religion. To say the least, this has accomplished that goal. But what is more important is to note the real question this raises and that is, To what extent does a free society have to compromise its freedoms to satisfy a particular religion ??


The point of this thread is to say that muslims are hypocrites, and to pander to prejudiced bigots.

The article aims at the lowest common denominator, and to be fair probably gets there pretty easily.

Is, or is not on of the mottos of ATS Deny Ignorance?

TD



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
The point of this thread is to say that muslims are hypocrites, and to pander to prejudiced bigots.

If that is what you make of it than that is your prerogative to do so. I see it for somethign else.

I wonder which side is more bigoted, the ones who try to show the double standards that exist in a particular society or the ones who perpetuate the double standards ??

You are right in one way though, its has managed to draw out the lowest common denominator, which is why I presume you are here because so far you have only reinforced this thesis





[edit on 4-2-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   


If that is what you make of it than that is your prerogative to do so. I see it for somethign else.

I wonder which side is more bigoted, the ones who try to show the double standards that exist in a particular society or the ones who perpetuate the double standards ??


'Try to Show Double Standards'?

The original linked thread was racist diatribe, with no supporting links.

So that would make it lazy racist diatribe.

There have been links posted showing muslims condemning the various acts carried out, and *hey*, so that would make the entire article a lazy, racist, deceitful diatribe.



You are right in one way though, its has managed to draw out the lowest common denominator, which is why I presume you are here because so far you have only reinforced this thesis


Just like your sig says: 'Confess Hate'.

TD



[edit on 4-2-2006 by IAF101]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
'Try to Show Double Standards'?
The original linked thread was racist diatribe, with no supporting links.
So that would make it lazy racist diatribe.

Well by going through that "lazy racist diatribe" was I able to find the actual cartoons which make up the eye of this storm. If you had gone throught the link provided you can see the link at the bottom of the page.
Granted that the article is one sided but those are the views of the author and as free society goes, we are all entitled to our views. But the important thing is for people to see the cartoons and introspect. Would they have reacted the same way for similar provocation?

Instead of commenting on the issue at hand, you have sytematicaly diagressed from the main point of my post which is to question if the reaction is worth the cause ?
Do you have anything to say on that or does your bias cloud your objectivity towards this topic ?




posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   

iaf101
Well by going through that "lazy racist diatribe" was I able to find the actual cartoons which make up the eye of this storm. If you had gone throught the link provided you can see the link at the bottom of the page.


The Danish cartoons have been reported elsewhere, as you well know - and well before this disgusting thread appeared. In reputable news organisations.

The lazy racist diatribe is from the original thread - basically saying that muslims don't condemn terrorism. As you well know.



: Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Muslims are outraged


No links - *lazy*. Also refuted. Hence lazy, racist, deceitful diatribe.




Granted that the article is one sided but those are the views of the author and as free society goes, we are all entitled to our views. But the important thing is for people to see the cartoons and introspect. Would they have reacted the same way for similar provocation?


And my view is that it happens to be a lazy, racist diatribe, that appeals to that sort of person that think that arabs breed too much. And I'll write that freely.



Instead of commenting on the issue at hand, you have sytematicaly diagressed from the main point of my post which is to question if the reaction is worth the cause ?
Do you have anything to say on that or does your bias cloud your objectivity towards this topic ?


The issue at hand was that the post implies that all muslims support terrorism. Lazily.

I have attempted to refute this, because frankly, someone has to. How exactly, does this count as digression?

TD


[edit on 4-2-2006 by TaupeDragon]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
The Danish cartoons have been reported elsewhere, as you well know - and well before this disgusting thread appeared. In reputable news organisations.

Yes, but the cartoons shown were just one or two from the entire collage of them that one would have to see to realize its intent.
The main aim I would say is that of these news media doing it again and again is to asset their rights to a free press in a free society and as the Danish prime minister so rightly put it. He wont apologise for the freedoms of a free society.


No links - *lazy*. Also refuted. Hence lazy, racist, deceitful diatribe.

That is merely form the article to which the link has been provided. That is again the opinions of the articles writer and in an article the author is not required to present his resources unless of course it is to be taken as fact by some.




Granted that the article is one sided but those are the views of the author and as free society goes, we are all entitled to our views. But the important thing is for people to see the cartoons and introspect. Would they have reacted the same way for similar provocation?

And my view is that it happens to be a lazy, racist diatribe, that appeals to that sort of person that think that arabs breed too much. And I'll write that freely.

Well besides wasting 2 lines of text on histrionics you have not addressed the question ! About the 'arab breed to much' that is a phrase that you have coined as I would never have put it like that.
In case you didnt read the question the first time, it is : Would people in the west react in a similar fashion had the cartoon been directed against Western faith ?



The issue at hand was that the post implies that all muslims support terrorism. Lazily.

The charges of terrorism are incidental but what the authro is trying to get to is whether the Muslim reaction is justified to the provocation on their faith ?
[See link "Provocation ???" in my first post ]


I have attempted to refute this, because frankly, someone has to. How exactly, does this count as digression?

You have taken one part of the authors article and expatiated on it to no end, leaving little of what is meant to be the authors real foucs. Isnt that lazy as well ?

.....some one has to ? >Do you see yourself as the champion of their cause ?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   


Granted that the article is one sided but those are the views of the author and as free society goes, we are all entitled to our views.


And, thank God, in a free society I have a right to refute this hateful nonsense.

And my view is that it happens to be a lazy, racist diatribe, that appeals to that sort of person that think that arabs breed too much. And I'll write that freely.



Well besides wasting 2 lines of text on histrionics you have not addressed the question ! About the 'arab breed to much' that is a phrase that you have coined as I would never have put it like that.


From you, in the 'Tensions Rising on Hamas' thead:



In 1948 after the war their were 10,000 jews and nearly 200,000 arabs. But where the number of jews has increased at geometrically the Arabs have bred Exponentially. Whos fault is that ? HAve the Jews abducted the Palaestinian women and impregenated them in some sick campaign against themselves ?


If I would have written something like that I'd try to forget about it too.

I believe you mentioned the 'H' word again. I'll just cut and paste the words I used in our last 'debate', when you also accused me of histrionics.



Hello. Histrionics:

n 1: a performance of play [syn: theatrical performance, theatrical, representation] 2: a deliberate display of emotion for effect

You've been accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of anti-semitism/'hatred of jews'.

You've accused arabs of overbreeding, and as a race of being bombers.

You've accused me of being a 'sympathiser' with terrorism, a 'stooge' to terrorists, and of calling the Israelis 'sadistic'.

I think the word 'banal' may have been used as well. I could quite possibly have been 'maligning the truth' and 'snivelling', for good measure.

You've stated initially that the Palestinians were nomads, then that they lived in tents, although in an outbreak of reason you then admitted that they did live in brick buildings. 'Cowsheds' admittedly, but buildings nevertheless.

If *anyone* is being histrionic here, it ain't me.




In case you didnt read the question the first time, it is : Would people in the west react in a similar fashion had the cartoon been directed against Western faith ?


In case *you* didn't read the original article , it was concerning 'muslim hypocrisy', not freedom of the press. You've *as usual* tried to swerve and hijack the post to embrace prejudice and embrace hatred.

The issue at hand was that the post implies that all muslims support terrorism. Lazily.


You have taken one part of the authors article and expatiated on it to no end, leaving little of what is meant to be the authors real foucs. Isnt that lazy as well ?


The article was roughly 80% (at least 15 lines) concerning muslim's apparent love of terrorism. I think it is safe to say that the author's main focus was to say that muslims are, or endorse terrorists. Stop being deliberately obtuse. Again.

Like I said, transient global anemia. Which is fine.

Have a nice morning.

TD



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
And my view is that it happens to be a lazy, racist diatribe, that appeals to that sort of person that think that arabs breed too much. And I'll write that freely.

So you retort to hate with more hate ??

How very clever of you !



From you, in the 'Tensions Rising on Hamas' thead:
........
If I would have written something like that I'd try to forget about it too.


Again you were not able to get it right were you ??
I said that when we were talking about demographic growth and also my exact words were: Arabs bred exponentialy, which doest have the same crassness that your indegenious phrase has !



I believe you mentioned the 'H' word again. I'll just cut and paste the words I used in our last 'debate', when you also accused me of histrionics.

Apparently you find the word "histrionics" to be beyond you. I think I can understand that, but while all the fuss with dictionary.com ??

Alright next time I will words that are more basic, okay ?



In case *you* didn't read the original article , it was concerning 'muslim hypocrisy', not freedom of the press. You've *as usual* tried to swerve and hijack the post to embrace prejudice and embrace hatred.

The title of the thread is, " Interesting Article on Muslim hypocrisy " which is about the hypocracy of the Muslim people when dealing with the west. Moreover the article is purely subjective and is ove persons opinion about Muslim hypocracy. His article culminates ( oops! there I go again ) / ends with an emphasis on the present row over the Arab cartoons which originated on a Danish newspaper.
Me prejudice and hatered ? Why, you dont even consider the probability of any Muslim hypocrisy and you accuse me of prejudice ?

Are you a Muslim ?


The article was roughly 80% (at least 15 lines) concerning muslim's apparent love of terrorism. I think it is safe to say that the author's main focus was to say that muslims are, or endorse terrorists.

Not really, all the article aims to prove is that the rank hypocrisy of a certain group that the author finds. Nothing more, nothing less.
Its not the number of lines, its what they mean and in what context they were taken from. Obviously talking semantics is useless with you as you inevitably confabulate you own ideas of what is or was written.



Like I said, transient global anemia. Which is fine.

So does this belong to the same miscellany as your' Arabs breed to much ' ??



IAF



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101
So you retort to hate with more hate ??

How very clever of you !


Where did I say Hate? That's your sig, not mine.

But at least it sounds like you are admitting the original article was a hate tract, so maybe that's some sort of comomon ground.


From you, in the 'Tensions Rising on Hamas' thead:
........
If I would have written something like that I'd try to forget about it too.



Again you were not able to get it right were you ??
I said that when we were talking about demographic growth and also my exact words were: Arabs bred exponentialy, which doest have the same crassness that your indegenious phrase has !



sp-nnshl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to an exponent.
2. Mathematics.
1. Containing, involving, or expressed as an exponent.
2. Expressed in terms of a designated power of e, the base of natural logarithms.


1,2,4,16,256 etc

You obviously follow the teachings of Malthus when it comes to arabic populations.

link



Apparently you find the word "histrionics" to be beyond you. I think I can understand that, but while all the fuss with dictionary.com ??

Alright next time I will words that are more basic, okay ?




Just steer away from words that are borderline abusive, Mkay?


You started the 'histrionics' thing, and I was simply pointing out that it wasn't me using histrionic language.



The title of the thread is, " Interesting Article on Muslim hypocrisy " which is about the hypocracy of the Muslim people when dealing with the west. Moreover the article is purely subjective and is ove persons opinion about Muslim hypocracy. His article culminates ( oops! there I go again ) / ends with an emphasis on the present row over the Arab cartoons which originated on a Danish newspaper.


As I've said before - 80% of the article was 'why muslims are/support terrorists'. The 'freedom of the press' bit was used an excuse to spew hatred. And some people just lap it up.



Me prejudice and hatered ? Why, you dont even consider the probability of any Muslim hypocrisy and you accuse me of prejudice ?


You've started out saying this article is about 'freedom of the press', you are now saying it's about 'muslim hypocrisy'.

I've said all along it's about disguising the thread as an excuse to bash muslims on the head.

Why don't people just be honest and post threads saying, 'I hate muslims'! We would all know where we stand.



Are you a Muslim ?


Oh dearie me. No.

Just because I don't like someone labelling a few billion people terrorists doesn't make me a co-religionist.


Its not the number of lines, its what they mean and in what context they were taken from. Obviously talking semantics is useless with you as you inevitably confabulate you own ideas of what is or was written.



I think most rational people can read the context just fine.

Like I said, transient global anemia. Which is fine.


Oops. Should have said 'amnesia' not 'anemia'.

And you should have flamed my ass off over it.



So does this belong to the same miscellany as your' Arabs breed to much ' ??


Eh? You forgot to say that your wote that arabs bred 'exponentially'

Taking my kid out - back at you later!

TD


IAF



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join