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.

 

Freedom of Speech - An excuse to be Openly an Anti-Muslim

page: 15
36
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Are the Muslim holy books ones of peace or ones of violence?



Jihad makes up

• 24% of the Medinan Koran (holy),
• 21% of the Hadith (holy but somewhat open to debate),
• 67% of the Sira (biographies of the life of Muhammad).

www.cspipublishing.com...


Altogether 31% of the trilogy is devoted to spreading Islam by the sword.

That isn't terribly surprising if you remember that Muhammad spread Islam by the sword himself.



In the space of a single decade Muhammad fought 8 major battles, led 18 raids, and planned another 38 military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction.

www.historynet.com...





edit on 21-2-2012 by ollncasino because: clarify




posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I believe there is only one case when freedom of speech may be limited - incinting unlawful violence. And no, spreading hate that may indirectly lead to unlawful violence does not count. So unless someone says "(insert some group or individual) should be attacked/killed", everything goes.

Hate speech is unwarranted censorship plain and simple, and hate is a legitimate emotion that is sometimes justified.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


It's good [snip] like you don't make laws then.

So inciting to violence is not allowed but inciting to incite violence is allowed? What stops hateful groups from specializing in this form of incitement? Ever think beyond a couple of words? Keep making excuses, one day you'll run into a rock.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Maslo
 


It's good [snip] like you don't make laws then.

So inciting to violence is not allowed but inciting to incite violence is allowed? What stops hateful groups from specializing in this form of incitement? Ever think beyond a couple of words? Keep making excuses, one day you'll run into a rock.


Hate speech is not direclty inciting violence, or inciting to incite violence. Inciting hate should be legal.

Keep making excuses for blatant censorship, one day it may be you who would be prosecuted under constantly broadening hate speech laws, for some trivial thing some bureucrat detached from reality would not consider enough politically correct.
edit on 21/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Inciting hate should be legal.


Oh boy...Did you by any chance fall on your head as a kid?


Keep making excuses for blatant censorship, one day it may be you who would be prosecuted under constantly broadening hate speech laws, for some trivial thing some bureucrat detached from reality would not consider enough politically correct.


Right, because being against the incitement of hatred is going to put me in the position to be prosecuted...because of what exactly? Calling racists on their diatribe? Calling biggots on their asinine statements? See the difference between me and you is that you are afraid of prosecution because you know what you are saying is simply wrong. I don't care for prosecution because, 1- if people were prosecuted for saying the things I do I wouldn't want to be on the "good" side. 2- I know I'm right so bring on the prosecution.(I'm sure they'll be able to understand what I'm saying better than someone who believes people should be free to incite hatred)
edit on 21-2-2012 by InfoKartel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 




Oh boy...Did you by any chance fall on your head as a kid?


Any argument, or just insults? And considering that hate speech laws are unconstitutional in the US, I guess all the founding fathers fell on their heads? Get down from your high horse.



See the difference between me and you is that you are afraid of prosecution because you know what you are saying is simply wrong.


No, the difference is that I tolerate even "wrong" opinions, while you have no shame to ban those opinions you disagree with.




Right, because being against the incitement of hatred is going to put me in the position to be prosecuted...because of what exactly? Calling racists on their diatribe? Calling biggots on their asinine statements?


Then yours will be the case of incitement of hatred against biggots.
edit on 21/2/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/2/12 by Maslo because: typo



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



No, the difference is that I tolerate even "wrong" opinions, while you have no shame to ban those opinions you disagree with.




Ten bucks say I am way more tolerant than you could ever be. And it's not about an "opinion I don't agree with" as your straw man would make it out to be...

I'm tolerant of many things but INCITEMENT TO HATRED is not one of them. If you have to ask why then you're really unintelligent. REALLY. And this is not a personal attack as in "hey I'm smarter than you"...it's more like..."damn you have to be stupid to not understand that".

Incitement to hatred is not just "an opinion", it is an agenda. A psychological virus if you will. You're fine with it because you don't understand the ramifications. I'm fine with you not understanding the ramifications and I wouldn't want to "ban your opinion", after all, it is 2012 and not 4012, I don't expect most people to understand much.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 





Ten bucks say I am way more tolerant than you could ever be.


Words are cheap, as is tolerating something one agrees with or is neutral towards. But when it comes to tolerating something you disagree with, you are quick to call for a ban.
Make no mistake, you are not a tolerant person.



I'm tolerant of many things but INCITEMENT TO HATRED is not one of them. If you have to ask why then you're really unintelligent. REALLY. And this is not a personal attack as in "hey I'm smarter than you"...it's more like..."damn you have to be stupid to not understand that".

You're fine with it because you don't understand the ramifications. I'm fine with you not understanding the ramifications and I wouldn't want to "ban your opinion", after all, it is 2012 and not 4012, I don't expect most people to understand much.


Nice condescenting attitude you have there. But you have yet to provide a strong argument to warrant it.



Incitement to hatred is not just "an opinion", it is an agenda. A psychological virus if you will.


Irrelevant. Ban those agendas and memes you disagree with? Great thinking there, hypocrite.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Irrelevant. Ban those agendas and memes you disagree with? Great thinking there, hypocrite.


...

Are you sane? Serious question.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Maslo
 



Irrelevant. Ban those agendas and memes you disagree with? Great thinking there, hypocrite.


...

Are you sane? Serious question.


Yes, I even have a paper to prove it.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3
 


Actually it is bigotry because 9.11 was committed by people who so happend to be muslim, there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world. The holocaust happend by people who so happend to be Germans, should we go around killing germans? Some people in my city were killed by people who so happened to be black, should we go killing blacks? The bombings taking place in afghanistan are being done by people who so happend to be white, should we go killing white people?

Yes it is 911% bigotry. Also a little fact that you may have missed that I might need to use crayons is to show you that all the perps of 9.11 were men. Should we declare war on men?

Why dont you post a picture of a black man being lynched in the middle of NYC and lets see the response, after all a lot of black people did kill, so its acceptable according to your logic.
edit on 062929p://2America/ChicagoTue, 21 Feb 2012 06:23:32 -0600 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by ALLDRAFT
 


Well they have a right because we have been bombing them for the past 30 years, so their criticism is justified, we are saying all these things out of ignorance and hate, therein lies the difference.


wow, so you can justify everything that Muslims do in the name of hate as standing up for themselves, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 

somehow I missed this:

USA bashing is much more acceptable here, in this forum, than Muslim bashing (or any other group bashing) is. Why is one tolerated by our members, and the other is not?


you've been actively participating in a thread about freedom of speech - pro and con - do you really have to ask?

:-)

does the anti-American rhetoric hurt your feelings?

does it scare you?

what should we do about it do you think?



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Freedom comes at a price, and there are consequences for everything.


there's nothing left to say

:-)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Actually it is bigotry because 9.11 was committed by people who so happend to be muslim, there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world.


While it is true that most Muslims just want a quiet life like you or I, neither Muhammad nor Osama bin Laden were advocates of peace. Quite the opposite in fact.


“I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

Prophet Muhammad farewell address, March 632



“I was ordered to fight people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.”

Osama bin Laden, November 2001






edit on 21-2-2012 by ollncasino because: clarify



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel

Right, because being against the incitement of hatred is going to put me in the position to be prosecuted...because of what exactly?


Because hatred is in the eye of the beholder, and you are allowing, indeed BEGGING, for someone else to think for you, and decide on your behalf what is "hateful".

When they decide against one of YOUR pet projects, you will be no less muzzled than the rest of the population.



Calling racists on their diatribe? Calling biggots on their asinine statements?


Trying to silence them is NOT "calling" them. Once you agitate successfully for THEIR silencing, YOUR OWN silencing will not be far behind. "Calling" them would be offering counter arguments - I know you don't HATE them... right? I mean, "calling" them couldn't ever be considered "hate speech"... right?

RIGHT?



edit on 2012/2/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Maslo
 



No, the difference is that I tolerate even "wrong" opinions, while you have no shame to ban those opinions you disagree with.




Ten bucks say I am way more tolerant than you could ever be. And it's not about an "opinion I don't agree with" as your straw man would make it out to be...


I'll take that bet. It's not hard to see who prefers to allow opposition viewpoints and who prefers they be quashed.



I'm tolerant of many things but INCITEMENT TO HATRED is not one of them.


So then you are tolerant.. until you are INTOLERANT. Congrats. So are the rest of us. Even the bigots.

ETA: you aren't bigoted against bigots, are you? This should help you find out:



Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb


Source


edit on 2012/2/21 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


How widespread is a Muslim belief in free speech?


97% of British Muslims in an ICM survey stated that Western newspapers were wrong to publish the depictions of Muhammad that appeared in the Danish Press.

85% of British Muslims were offended by the Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

Only 14% (6% refused to answer & 3% don't know) agreed that the Danish embassies should have been attacked.

Only 12% of British Muslims agree with Muslim demonstrators calling for the death of those who insult Islam (1% refused to answer and 5% don't know).

Only 13% agree that violence against people who insult Islam is justified. 1% refused to answer and 7% don't know.

In addition, only 20% of respondents have sympathy with those who carried out the London Bombings. 1% refused to answer and 4% don't know.

ICM Poll


So virtually all British Muslims did not agree with Danish cartoons of Muhammad being published.

Only roughly 1 in 8 British Muslims believed in the death penalty for those who insult Islam and only 1 in 5 have sympathy for the bombers of the London Underground which killed 52 members of the public and injured a further 700.

Clearly most British Muslims do not support violence in the name of Islam. However, a significant minority clearly do.

Only 3% of British Muslims appear to believe in freedom of expression if it is deemed to insult Islam.



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Actually it is bigotry because 9.11 was committed by people who so happend to be muslim, there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world.


Did the man who broke into the Danish cartoonists home with an axe, also just happen to be a Muslim?



Danish cartoonist tells court he 'faced certain death'

A Danish cartoonist who caricatured the Prophet Muhammad has told a court in Aarhus that a man who broke into his home meant to kill him with an axe.

Kurt Westergaard, 75, was testifying against Somali defendant Mohamed Geele, 29, who told the court he only wanted to "frighten" the cartoonist.

BBC


Clearly the Muslim who broke into the Danish cartoonists home didn't just "so happend to be muslim" as you put it.

Worryingly, at least 1 in 8 British Muslims agree that people who insult Islam should suffer the death penalty.

ICM Poll



posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by phantomjack
 


how many war games were going on 911? you dont know you dont care. it was muslims with tiny carboard cutter who overpowered trained military pilots who served in combat..

how many people in government are duel israeli citizen's? you have no idea..

how much in influence does the israeli lobby have on policy? you dont care

we were attacked alright, by traitors within USA..




n February of 2006, the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) published their report entitled: “Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks”. “There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.” (source: MTI Report 02/06) “An innocent (rented) delivery truck” with... ... a mural painted on the side depicting the events of 9/11 ON 9/11?!? How is that “innocent”?


deny ignorance.

do some real research..



I hope you realize that stating facts is wrong on many forums. it could get you a slap on the wrist.




top topics



 
36
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join