Remember Kelly, anything FOX says is automatically a lie. Just because they are the only ones reporting it while all the other networks distract from it and sweep it under the carpet... it still MUST be a lie.
Repeat that a hundred times a day to yourself for a year, and you'll start to understand what it is to be what they call a liberal "drone."
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by sumydidI actually don't know what he is complaining about? What about that story that was
Remember Kelly, anything FOX says is automatically a lie. Just because they are the only ones reporting it while all the other networks distract from it and sweep it under the carpet... it still MUST be a lie.
Repeat that a hundred times a day to yourself for a year, and you'll start to understand what it is to be what they call a liberal "drone."
discussed here or on TV by any network was wrong? I dislike the US Gov line on
what occured, the riots I can see as a result of the film, I do not buy into that just
like the riots a bad movie review is enough for RPG to be brought in to kill people
no matter who in the US Gov says it. That really puts the Muslim people in a very
bad light in my opinion. If it were people who meant to kill those people at least
that number would be small and with cause, as bad as that is, it is still better than
a poor movie review was enough to murder people.
Kelly
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by KellyJayHere is the Obama Administration's statement:
I actually don't know what he is complaining about? What about that story that was
discussed here or on TV by any network was wrong? I dislike the US Gov line on
what occured, the riots I can see as a result of the film, I do not buy into that just
like the riots a bad movie review is enough for RPG to be brought in to kill people
no matter who in the U ...[text shortened]... ad as that is, it is still better than
a poor movie review was enough to murder people.
Kelly
“We need to understand this is a fairly volatile situation and it’s not in response to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video. A film. We have judged to be reprehensible that in no way that has any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive."
I'll tell you what's offensive. It's that statement, coming from our country's leadership. Once again, Obama is playing the blame game. This time, it's the maker of a 14 minute video cllp that is so pathetic and dumb, it is described as looking like it was put together by a "child."
No, it couldn't possibly be anything Obama and America is doing; it's got to be that film. Nothing else. Yep...
Odd, I don't remember the Muslims burning British flags and killing British ambassadors, when Salmon Rushdie published "Satanic Verses." No, instead they burned copies of his book and issued Fatwahs and death threats at him personally.
But no, this time, an Egyptian who lives in America puts out a ridiculous 14 minute clip, and we are to believe that Muslims attacked American Embassies and killed random Americans, just because of that film. Don't bother mentioning that the attacks were planned well in advance of the release of the film, AND they occured on the 11th anniversary of 9/11...
No, according to our illustrious leader Obama, the Muslims all think warm, fuzzy thoughts when it comes to America and its leadership. They just hate the filmmaker and that's it. That's all. The end.
Obama should have used the usual "Blame Bush" excuse... that at least would have made some shred of sense to a couple of people.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by divegeesterI look at it like this, Islam is 1400 years old and Christianity is near 2000 years old, in terms of the evolution of the religion Islam is 600 years behind Christianity. Now what were peoples views within Christianity like towards blasphemers and heretics 600 years ago? Very different from today, blasphemy was a crime punishable by death in the UK up until the 17th Century and it was only finally removed as a crime in 2008. We don't have to go too far back into our history to a point where priests had the power to accuse someone of heresy, no evidence had to be provided and no trial for a defence was given, straight to the gallows they went.
I agree, if Chrisitan's carried on like this everytime somebody insulted Jesus/Jehovah this forum would be full of threads condeming the reaction. There is too much tollerance of the regular Islamic over-reaction to the smallest "insult" to thier religion. The voilence should be outright condemed and without the political counterbalnce of distancing themselves from the film - it's a crappy little film - get over it!
I'm not making excuses here, only providing reasons for why there is such intolerance within parts of the Islamic world to any sort of criticism regarding their religion. No doubt in years to come all of this intolerance will have evolved out of Islam just the same as it has in Christianity.
19 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobOne must ask oneself the question, why? why is Islam so intolerant of criticism? Ok
I look at it like this, Islam is 1400 years old and Christianity is near 2000 years old, in terms of the evolution of the religion Islam is 600 years behind Christianity. Now what were peoples views within Christianity like towards blasphemers and heretics 600 years ago? Very different from today, blasphemy was a crime punishable by death in the UK up un l of this intolerance will have evolved out of Islam just the same as it has in Christianity.
the film itself was not a critique, but a rather scurrilous attempt to simply offend, but
other Muslim intellectuals , like Rushdie for example, have in the past made attempts to
bring criticisms of Islam to the fore, only to have been met with accusations of
blasphemy and death threats. Are you saying it is simply a power struggle?
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe answer no doubt lies in this question - Why was Christianity so intolerant of criticism 500 years ago?
One must ask oneself the question, why? why is Islam so intolerant of criticism? Ok
the film itself was not a critique, but a rather scurrilous attempt to simply offend, but
other Muslim intellectuals , like Rushdie for example, have in the past made attempts to
bring criticisms of Islam to the fore, only to have been met with accusations of
blasphemy and death threats. Are you saying it is simply a power struggle?
19 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobits complicated, my thought is that somehow the Pope and papal doctrine was and is
The answer no doubt lies in this question - Why was Christianity so intolerant of criticism 500 years ago?
still thought to be infallible, as is somehow the case with Islam. But Christianity had
the reformation which challenged certain aspects of doctrine and authority, as far as
I am aware, Islam has had no such movement, nor can it, for it is ultimately
conservative to the extreme and all such attempts to offer criticism are met with
accusations of blasphemy and an emotive rather than a reasoned response. My
own thoughts are, that it cannot be defended, intellectually or rationally. Was
Mohammed for example illegitimate, or his father at least unknown, well yes. Did
he utter the so called satanic verses because he was going to get a pasting at
Medina if he didn't, well yes. Was Islam unfair by imposing a tax upon those
conquered peoples when Muslims were exempt, well yes and so it goes on and on,
questions which have answers that are unpalatable or at very least, distasteful to
Muslims.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut who would have thought that Christianity would have had a reformation 500 years ago? Any such dissent or blasphemy was met with such intolerance as there is within some parts of Islamic society today, yet it ended up having it's reformation. I see no reason why the same cannot happen within Islam.
its complicated, my thought is that somehow the Pope and papal doctrine was and is
still thought to be infallible, as is somehow the case with Islam. But Christianity had
the reformation which challenged certain aspects of doctrine and authority, as far as
I am aware, Islam has had no such movement, nor can it, for it is ultimately
conservat ...[text shortened]...
questions which have answers that are unpalatable or at very least, distasteful to
Muslims.
19 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt cannot happen because criticism of the prophet, his lifestyle and of Islamic tenets
But who would have thought that Christianity would have had a reformation 500 years ago? Any such dissent or blasphemy was met with such intolerance as there is within some parts of Islamic society today, yet it ended up having it's reformation. I see no reason why the same cannot happen within Islam.
and beliefs are considered blasphemous and punishable by death. In the case of the
reformation, the sale of indulgences could be legitimately challenged as unscriptural,
the same of course cannot be said of Islam, except perhaps in the case of temporary
marraige (mut‘ah) and the admonition that if a wife leaves her husband she is to have
intercourse with another man before being allowed top return (Halali) Rushdie tried to
challenge these tenets, for example, the ideas that the Koran itself has not been
subject to change, when in fact, the so called satanic verses, proved that it had.
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt cannot happen because criticism of the prophet, his lifestyle and of Islamic tenets
It cannot happen because criticism of the prophet, his lifestyle and of Islamic tenets
and beliefs are considered blasphemous and punishable by death. In the case of the
reformation, the sale of indulgences could be legitimately challenged as unscriptural,
the same of course cannot be said of Islam, except perhaps in the case of temporary
ma ...[text shortened]... as not been
subject to change, when in fact, the so called satanic verses, proved that it had.
and beliefs are considered blasphemous and punishable by death.
The same was true of Jesus and Christianity years ago yet change still happened.
19 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes, but the difference is, the actual practices of the church were successfully challenged on a scriptural basis, how is this ever going to happen in Islam? There is a case at present, in Pakistan, a young Christian girl with learning difficulties was accused of blasphemy, she was found with burned pages of the Koran in her bag, it was subsequently found out later, that they were planted there by an Islamic religious leader, a Molvi who hates Christians. He himself was subsequently arrested for blasphemy. Did it change a thing? Nope nor can it because the Koran states that blasphemy and apostasy is punishable by death, Muslims have no answer for this, they cannot evade it nor mitigate it in any way nor challenge it intellectually.
[b]It cannot happen because criticism of the prophet, his lifestyle and of Islamic tenets
and beliefs are considered blasphemous and punishable by death.
The same was true of Jesus and Christianity years ago yet change still happened.[/b]
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe main difference is that Christianitity is a Christ centered religion under the influence of the Holy Spirit, whereas Islam is an anti-christ centered religion under the influence of Satan the devil. And that is a major difference. 😏
But who would have thought that Christianity would have had a reformation 500 years ago? Any such dissent or blasphemy was met with such intolerance as there is within some parts of Islamic society today, yet it ended up having it's reformation. I see no reason why the same cannot happen within Islam.
Originally posted by SwissGambitRemember Kelly, anything FOX says is automatically a lie. Just because they are the only ones reporting it while all the other networks distract from it and sweep it under the carpet... it still MUST be a lie.
Thumbs up.
Repeat that a hundred times a day to yourself for a year, and you'll start to understand what it is to be what they call a liberal "drone."
The meaning here is that liberals view the truth reported on FOX NEWS automatically as a lie because FOX does not slant the news according to the liberal bias.
NOW IS THAT STILL A THUMBS UP? IF SO, GOOD FOR YOU! 😏
19 Sep 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI can use whatever criteria I want for thumbing.
Remember Kelly, anything FOX says is automatically a lie. Just because they are the only ones reporting it while all the other networks distract from it and sweep it under the carpet... it still MUST be a lie.
Repeat that a hundred times a day to yourself for a year, and you'll start to understand what it is to be what they call a liberal "drone."
[b] ...[text shortened]... ccording to the liberal bias.
NOW IS THAT STILL A THUMBS UP? IF SO, GOOD FOR YOU! 😏[/b]