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.

 

Norway says: No Way to Mosque until Equal Treatment from Saudi Arabia!

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 

Well in SA we have a very old Muslim culture, and fortunately hardcore views from elsewhere is not our daily experience with each other.
It's actually very nice, and nobody shoves their views down anybody else's throat.
Since the Somalian refugees have arrived there have been some hiccups.
Mainly the fact that they blasted their morning call to prayer in the wee hours, but that has been resolved through dialogue. They have issues with the local blacks, mainly because they are better business people and sell goods for cheaper at their stores. It is not really religious issues.
So that co-existence here has made me wonder.
I don't think the Saudis own Islam, and a lot of that royalty is probably not even religious.

As for Islam dominating Europe - maybe one day Islam will form a numerical majority, but that does not mean it will actually have converted the locals.
Maybe if someone could find an interpretation of Islam that allows alcohol?
Sorry, Europeans will never drink coffee at the Oktoberfest, or burn their vineyards.

Islam tried that in Europe before, and despite much pressure to convert there was relatively little interest.
Besides, do you really think the royal minority in Saudi want another version of their country?
Where must they go to party?

edit on 9-11-2010 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   

I have to disagree. Respect needs to be a requirement in certain situations. No respect, no deal. I have not spoken of fear or retribution - they are both things I am totally against. But if in certain situations there is not mutual respect, there cannot be a positive outcome.


By the very definition of respect, it is not physically possible to require it or demand it. If Saudi Arabia does something Norway asks in this case, its simply bargaining... not respect. Lets say someone violates my property rights such as by trespassing, and I then tell them I'm about to trespass on their own property in retaliation. They then leave. They are doing so do cut a deal for their own benefit only, not to show me respect. I don't see how respect can be an act of selfishness by someone trapped in a corner. If Saudi Arabia's government cut a deal with Norway's government and agreed to allow Christian churches they would be doing so as an act of selfish bargaining after getting cornered. If bargain is a synonym for respect, then I'm wrong and you are right. But I maintain that you are wrong since respect must involve either love or generosity, neither of which are involved in the dispute.

While Saudi Arabia may very well *halt a sign of disrespect* toward Norway, simply stopping a sign of disrespect doesn't show that respect is now there but rather just hides the symptom of disrespect. If you punch you me in the face now, but then stop punishing me in the face after my buddies show up, its not out of respect that you've stopped punishing me in the face. Its simply because you can no longer get away with it without consequence. Same thing for Saudi Arabia. They now have consequences for their actions and make a bargain to avoid them.

The idea you wish to *force* people under threat of violence to stop construction of church buildings in Norway is repulsive. So of course I have disrespect of you, anger toward you, and hatred of the violence that you support in Norway. So yes, the fact that you support Norway forcing Muslims not to build churches speaks volumes about you personally. I do practice what I preach by acknowledging people's right to build whatever they wish on their own land. The fact you support the idea of visiting my property to force me into what I can and can't build on it indicates we cannot peacefully co-exist.

As for practicing what I preach, I don't violate people's property rights and therefore I do practice what I preach, and I also show a default level of respect until it is unearned. You build what buildings you will on your own property, and I'll build what buildings I will on my own property. Deal?



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
What a ridiculous move by Saudi Arabia. (state of the art mosque for 256 people.........?)

What a fitting and brilliant response by Norway.

All the clowns that are jumping up and down and claiming this is anti-muslim(for some twisted reason):

WAHABIs are destroying Islam.

Just as Catholics are doing one hell of a job(pun not intended) to destroy Christianity.

Lets see the logically impaired take this one on. I for one believe there won't be Muslim demonstrations other than those that are paid for in advance.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

I have to disagree. Respect needs to be a requirement in certain situations. No respect, no deal. I have not spoken of fear or retribution - they are both things I am totally against. But if in certain situations there is not mutual respect, there cannot be a positive outcome.


By the very definition of respect, it is not physically possible to require it or demand it. If Saudi Arabia does something Norway asks in this case, its simply bargaining... not respect. Lets say someone violates my property rights such as by trespassing, and I then tell them I'm about to trespass on their own property in retaliation. They then leave. They are doing so do cut a deal for their own benefit only, not to show me respect. I don't see how respect can be an act of selfishness by someone trapped in a corner. If Saudi Arabia's government cut a deal with Norway's government and agreed to allow Christian churches they would be doing so as an act of selfish bargaining after getting cornered. If bargain is a synonym for respect, then I'm wrong and you are right. But I maintain that you are wrong since respect must involve either love or generosity, neither of which are involved in the dispute.

While Saudi Arabia may very well *halt a sign of disrespect* toward Norway, simply stopping a sign of disrespect doesn't show that respect is now there but rather just hides the symptom of disrespect. If you punch you me in the face now, but then stop punishing me in the face after my buddies show up, its not out of respect that you've stopped punishing me in the face. Its simply because you can no longer get away with it without consequence. Same thing for Saudi Arabia. They now have consequences for their actions and make a bargain to avoid them.

The idea you wish to *force* people under threat of violence to stop construction of church buildings in Norway is repulsive. So of course I have disrespect of you, anger toward you, and hatred of the violence that you support in Norway. So yes, the fact that you support Norway forcing Muslims not to build churches speaks volumes about you personally. I do practice what I preach by acknowledging people's right to build whatever they wish on their own land. The fact you support the idea of visiting my property to force me into what I can and can't build on it indicates we cannot peacefully co-exist.

As for practicing what I preach, I don't violate people's property rights and therefore I do practice what I preach, and I also show a default level of respect until it is unearned. You build what buildings you will on your own property, and I'll build what buildings I will on my own property. Deal?


I respect your point of view, and my own to disagree.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightbringr


Fan-freaking-tastic! This thread is a breath of fresh air for me. Since i signed up to ATS two months ago, i have engaged in debates on several threads about the problems with Islam in general. I dont believe all Muslims are bad, but there are deep, underlying issues that need to be addressed with it here in the West.

I have gotten used to being jumped all over for expressing concern on issues such as religious intolerance and sexism in Islamic culture. I must say, it is nice to see there are some people here with some common sense and can call a spade a spade.

Good for Norway! I truely hope that other Western countries will follow suit in such circumstances. The US would be wise to do the same with the mosque planned for New York. Time to reduce dependance on Saudi oil.


Yes. A breath of fresh air indeed. Your comment about dependence on Saudi oil linked two things in my mind which I persongally have never joined up before. Our dependence on oil and the allowing things like sharia law.
Maybe the two aren't connected - or maybe they are and I'm coming late to the party - duh! But could there be a kind of quid pro quo going on here, I wonder?

Just want to be clear here - I am not anti-muslim at all, on the contrary, I have a lot of respect for aspects of Islam and Islamic culture.

It makes me think that this is just one more reason why we really need to pressure those big corporations into releasing those free energy patents they are sitting on.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Perhaps it's time that all the countries of the west adopt a religious reciprocity law. Basically, it would say that your missionaries and money to build religious buildings are welcome in this country if and only if your missionaries and money to build religious building are welcome in your country.

Short and sweet.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


Would you give a big bravo if a Muslim extremist in Germany was bombed and 20 innocent women and children was killed due to the attack


I for one don't condone terrorism mate.

and I never said US attacked Germany using drones, I said US planned to use drones to attack targets in Germany, do your research, just because you don't hear it in MSM Zionist controlled media doesn't mean it isn't reality



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zamini
 


Exactly, Muslims have bigger issues to face than this, the same goes for Norway, but we know why they are trying to use this non-issue to divert attention, it is to justify US spying on Norwegian citizens since 2000


Some of us actually have the ability to analyze information.



posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by nightbringr
 


Would you give a big bravo if a Muslim extremist in Germany was bombed and 20 innocent women and children was killed due to the attack


I for one don't condone terrorism mate.

and I never said US attacked Germany using drones, I said US planned to use drones to attack targets in Germany, do your research, just because you don't hear it in MSM Zionist controlled media doesn't mean it isn't reality


Then do me a favor and link me your proof, I can't find it or perhaps it's somthing your making up.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by nightbringr
 


I made a big mistake, watch this whole video




It is somewhere in the end, you will see the mistake..

Watch the whole thing, it would be better.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by nightbringr
 


I made a big mistake, watch this whole video




It is somewhere in the end, you will see the mistake..

Watch the whole thing, it would be better.


I don't see how "credible information" = proof, Oozy. The rest of the article was an eye-opener. Like the statement that Israel is often unfairly singled out and bullied.

I personally have no problem with the targeted assassinations.' you thing if Bin Laden had a chance to take out Bush he wouldn't have?

Of course the US has issues with human rights. They are still head and shoulders above most of the places you defend.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 





Deal?


No deal!. Saudi's in this case are hypocritical & clearly wrong! Makes no difference what you say!



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by civilchallenger
 





Deal?


No deal!. Saudi's in this case are hypocritical & clearly wrong! Makes no difference what you say!


If Saudi Arabia starts punching Christians in the face their country, would a good idea to try and stop that to start punching Muslims in the face your country? Or if Saudi Arabia starts killing babies for fun, the best way to stop that would be for you to kidnap babies from Saudi Arabia and kill them in cold blood? Why even have punishment for crimes? If someone commits a crime against you, you can just commit that same crime against someone else and that "will solve everything".

Or at least that will surely be the case in Norway where they are mad Saudi Arabians are committing property crimes against their residents. Now that Saudi Arabian government people committed a property crime against their residents, you should commit even more property crimes against residents of Norway. That "will solve everything".

Your logic is so twisted I don't know what to tell you. Common sense would have me believe that solving crime with even more crime is hands down the worst idea imaginable. I guess I lack whatever moral blinds you have managed to put over your eyes. Or what I think it is, is that even though you say "it makes no difference what you say" what you meant is "it makes no difference what the truth of the matter really is". Then your position makes perfect sense. You just know you are right, and nothing, especially not the truth in front of your face, could ever change your mind.
edit on 11-11-2010 by civilchallenger because: Puncuation / Spelling



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


AlJazeeraEnglish?

AlJazeera is known for supporting hardcore Islamic views and being one sided

I cant believe ATS members are believing what AlJazeera is talking or presenting, all of there news issues have proven to be propaganda.
blogcritics.org...

AlJazeera is only talking about these american issues that the public cares about is to grab your attenuation.
edit on 11-11-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 

Interesting point, and there's no easy answer.
Considering the Western/Islamic culture clash, for many people the issue would be less about "property crime" but about the nature of spreading ideology.

Spreading ideology to another culture while not allowing that culture the same freedoms reminds us of colonialism.
It signals a movement from peaceful co-existence, towards one culture behaving in a superior and vain, dismissive fashion above another.
It means that Europe's liberalism is being misused to its own detriment.

The Peace of Umar already forbade Christians from wearing crosses or building and repairing churches.
With the Spanish "reconquista" Europe returned that treatment, and it certainly colonized with religion.
However, since the Enlightenment (and even the influences of more modern Islam) it now allows freedom of religion.
I don't understand why Europe should be scolded.
If one culture allows religious freedom and the other doesn't, then Saudi Arabia should get out of the medieval mindset.
I don't see Europe killing people for apostasy or spreading Islam to Christians, so it's hardly tit-for-tat.

The West protested apartheid (although Reagan and Thatcher followed a program of constructive engagement).
So why should it not protest human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, or even China and elsewhere?
Why should it unconditionally except every other ideology?
That argument is a slippery slope to accept every hate group.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Norway's move is retarded!!

Us western societies claim to be all about freedom and liberties, and we like to think it separates us from countries that suppress freedom/liberties...like Saudi Arabia. It's what's makes us better.

What is this gonna accomplish? It takes away freedom/liberties to believe whatever you want and act on those beliefs. They are removing that freedom!

What's next? Wanna start child labour again until China stops doing so? Torture people like in Iran until they stop?

Nothing but a bunch of fear-mongering racists that think they found a legit excuse to suppress minorities. And all in the name of freedom...how ironic



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

From what is under scrutiny they are not removing the rights of people to practice Islam, in what ever form. I don't think they'll allow child-brides, honor killings, de facto slavery, homophobia and some of the other excesses associated with certain interpretations of Islam.
How spiteful of them.

If it was really tit-for-tat there would be an exodus of Muslims back to their own states.
If Norway is retarded, by implication Saudi Arabia is retarded times 10.

But there's truth to the argument - if we fight intolerance with intolerance then we become just as bad as the intolerant group.
That would then also apply to Nazis and other intolerant groups.
But - did Norway ever claim to be unconditionally tolerant?



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by civilchallenger
 

It means that Europe's liberalism is being misused to its own detriment.


If by Europe's liberalism you mean freedom of religion, it isn't being used to its own detriment. You are presuming Norway's previous allowance of the freedom of religion and property rights are causing more Muslims in Norway. That isn't the case. Governments much more often work to make whatever is banned happen more often. If a government bans a book, everybody is going to want to read it. If a government bans a drug, a lot of people are going to suddenly want to try it. If a government bans a church, people are going to suddenly want to go there to see what they are missing. Its a bad assumption that banning a religion is going to make it less popular. Whats making Christianity less popular in the middle east is that the US neocons would claim their acting in the name of their religion while plundering their resources. That is what is preventing Christianity from spreading in the Middle East. Not the banning of churches in Saudi Arabia.

Certainly immigration policies are leading toward more Muslims in Europe, and (classic) liberalism is, in part, responsible for that.


If one culture allows religious freedom and the other doesn't, then Saudi Arabia should get out of the medieval mindset.


And yet here people are on this thread encouraging the *spread* of the midieval mindset by saying other people should ban their enemy religion's church building construction. Saudi Arabia isn't going to lift the ban. Rather, the action simply works to spread and encourage religious conflict because the protest is based upon the negative (banning Muslim's church construction) rather than on the positive.

Norway should very much protest Saudi Arabia's lack of religious freedom. However, there is a right way and a grossly morally wrong way to do so. The proper way to protest Saudi Arabian religious freedom bans would be things like holding up signs in a group, boycotting, and letter writing. The improper way would be to commit property crimes against innocent bystanders such as by attacking a Mosque construction site.

The modern Liberal position of banning hate groups is an incorrect one because one has an right to hate any other person. While hate isn't the answer, it is a human right because one has the freedom of belief... to believe whatever you want... whether that be that blacks are sub-human or that believing what Muhammad says will lead to eternal bliss upon death. So long as no crimes against other people are being done then hate is permitted. Just like if someone raped you or your son/daughter, you should be able to tell other people you hate the person who did that to you without going to jail.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 

Excellent points - it is quite a conundrum, and the arguments go way beyond this specific issue.

However, the fact is that Islam is not banned in Europe.
It is also true that Western countries have plundered the Arab/Islamic world.
However, they certainly had their local puppets involved in that plunder.
Not all Muslims would stand up for Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately the Wahabi version is a missionary version of Islam.
Would Scandinavia have opened a center to spread apartheid in the 1980s?
Apartheid only fell with the end of the Cold War, but the protests and sanctions certainly helped.

I'm not so sure about Norway in particular, but Europe has a post-WW 2 history of limiting ideologies.
In Germany there are limits on certain literature and symbols, going back to the allied victory.
In that sense it does not appear as free and limitless in religion as the USA (although de facto it comes across as more liberal, but I'm wondering about that impression now).
So we must agree that there are already limits on "religious" customs like female circumcision or honor killings.
Furthermore tit-for-tat diplomacy is common between countries, according to their interests.



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Are there a lot of Lutheran immigrants in Saudi Arabia?

My reasoning: If Norway has accepted immigrants from Muslim countries, but Saudi Arabia has no such presence of Norwegian immigrants (maybe Lutheran was a bad choice, but that is the type of Christianity that Scandinavia makes me think of). I'm just saying that it seems like lop-sided logic. And old to boot, because that's the same line parroted during the whole NYC mosque controversy.
edit on 14-11-2010 by Sphota because: clarification



new topics




 
51
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join