Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2012, 11:20 AM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
...and ultimately this is what it leads to:
"I announce today that this blasphemer who has abused the holy prophet, if somebody will kill him, I will give that person a prize of $100,000,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19687386 Ohmy

This is not a crazy religious leader. It's the government of Pakistan.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2012, 03:01 PM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
(22-09-2012 10:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-09-2012 08:55 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  wait wait wait wait wait, they think this video was created by the US government!!!!????!!!

[Image: poker_face_meme_sticker-p217364371397583...b3_400.jpg]

[Image: 1990667-Lol-face.jpg]

LOLWTF!!! These people are so stupid!!



I think it's a little more indirect.
They don't understand freedom of speech and think that the government can stop people from saying things.

The concept of personal freedom is almost unimaginable for many of them.

And they protest us for being ignorant...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2012, 03:47 PM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
Dear Muslims,

[Image: Hot-Problems-dislikes.jpg]

This is a dislike bar. If you do not like a Youtube video, please press the dislike button.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Logica Humano's post
22-09-2012, 04:08 PM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
(22-09-2012 11:20 AM)Thomas Wrote:  ...and ultimately this is what it leads to:
"I announce today that this blasphemer who has abused the holy prophet, if somebody will kill him, I will give that person a prize of $100,000,"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19687386 Ohmy

This is not a crazy religious leader. It's the government of Pakistan.
The fucking fuck? This is not even funny anymore. It's just mind-baffling how extremely ignorant and uneducated people like him are. Shocking

"I call upon these countries and say: Yes, freedom of expression is there, but you should make laws regarding people insulting our Prophet. And if you don't, then the future will be extremely dangerous."

Does he have any idea how much blood had to be spilled until we established the freedom of speech, including criticism of authorities?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
22-09-2012, 04:11 PM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
Honestly, these people need to learn how to deal with criticism. I feel that the world needs to tell them to grow up, not pander to these bullies who feel that whenever a slight is perceived they get to throw a temper tantrum. It's pathetic and sickening and not worthy of respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ABC's post
22-09-2012, 09:56 PM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
There's a helluva lot to criticize in Islam, most notably the tendency for more than a few Muslims to say, "Insult us and we'll kill you." That's totally unacceptable in a civilized world. It's nothing short of pathological and needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

That said, the film, judging from the 14-minute "trailer" on YouTube, is a great big stinking pile of dog poop. It deserves to be condemned--and if Obama and Clinton did so, more power to them.

Condemning is not the same as banning. Not even close. I don't know of anyone in the U.S. administration who advocated the banning of the film.

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
22-09-2012, 10:10 PM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
condemn (third-person singular simple
present condemns, present participle
condemning, simple past and past participle
condemned)

1. (transitive) To confer some sort of eternal
divine punishment upon.

2. (transitive) To adjudge (a building) as being
unfit for habitation.
The house was condemned after it was
badly damaged by fire.

3. (transitive) To scold sharply; to excoriate
the perpetrators of.
The president condemns the terrorist.
The president condemns the terrorist
attacks.

4. (transitive) To judicially pronounce
(someone) guilty.

5. (transitive) To determine and declare
(property) to be assigned to public use. See
eminent domain

6. (transitive) To adjudge (food or drink) as
being unfit for human consumption.

7. (transitive, law) To declare (a vessel) to be
forfeited to the government, to be a prize,
or to be unfit for service.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2012, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2012 02:12 AM by cufflink.)
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
(22-09-2012 10:10 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  condemn (third-person singular simple
present condemns, present participle
condemning, simple past and past participle
condemned)

1. (transitive) To confer some sort of eternal
divine punishment upon.

2. (transitive) To adjudge (a building) as being
unfit for habitation.
The house was condemned after it was
badly damaged by fire.

3. (transitive) To scold sharply; to excoriate
the perpetrators of.
The president condemns the terrorist.
The president condemns the terrorist
attacks.

4. (transitive) To judicially pronounce
(someone) guilty.

5. (transitive) To determine and declare
(property) to be assigned to public use. See
eminent domain

6. (transitive) To adjudge (food or drink) as
being unfit for human consumption.

7. (transitive, law) To declare (a vessel) to be
forfeited to the government, to be a prize,
or to be unfit for service.

[Edited to remove unwarranted snarkiness.]

I don't see your point. The most common meaning of "ban," and the only one that's relevant in this case, is "forbid" or "prohibit." Since that idea is nowhere to be found among the seven dictionary definitions of "condemn" that you've listed, doesn't that simply reinforce the fact that there's a big difference between the two?

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2012, 03:42 AM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
I would normally be pretty quick to criticise a film like this that is aiming to create conflict rather than aiming to convince anyone of anything. I would normally take a centrist view and look for a way that multiple sides could express their views on it and be seen to express their views, and to release all necessary frustrations on the topic.

However, once an american ambassador has been killed that is over. A dead ambassador means that anyone who seriously condemns and seriously criticises this film is siding with the bad guys. I'm not saying Muslims are the bad guys. I'm saying the ambassador killers are the bad guys, and once that happens the entire Muslim world lost the right to criticise this film. That right has been stolen from them. If you criticise this film with any veracity you are siding with bad people, and you need to go back and have a hard look at yourself in the mirror lest you find that you yourself have become a bad person. There is no middle ground on this film. That middle ground has been taken. Now you are either for violence or against violence. I'm against it. If you aren't against it then you are a bad person.

I don't care what the content of this film is. It isn't the problem any more. You* are.

* You not being anyone specific, just venting.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
23-09-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: Condemning "Innocence of Muslims"
(23-09-2012 03:42 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  However, once an american ambassador has been killed that is over. A dead ambassador means that anyone who seriously condemns and seriously criticises this film is siding with the bad guys. I'm not saying Muslims are the bad guys. I'm saying the ambassador killers are the bad guys, and once that happens the entire Muslim world lost the right to criticise this film. That right has been stolen from them. If you criticise this film with any veracity you are siding with bad people, and you need to go back and have a hard look at yourself in the mirror lest you find that you yourself have become a bad person. There is no middle ground on this film. That middle ground has been taken. Now you are either for violence or against violence. I'm against it. If you aren't against it then you are a bad person.

I'm trying to understand the logic here, and I'm baffled. Why in the world can't someone legitimately say that the film is shit AND ALSO say that the killing of the ambassador was a hideous, disgusting, totally unjustifiable act? Where's the contradiction there? If I'm against violence, do I then have to support the film, because some idiots have responded to it violently? Huh

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: