You can be against fanatical Islam without being a fanatic yourself.Beduin wrote:
orly?11 Bravo wrote:
anti islam would not be about hate.
you are right. not limted to hate only, but also violence
we are talking about anti islam, not anti radical islam.Turquoise wrote:
You can be against fanatical Islam without being a fanatic yourself.Beduin wrote:
orly?11 Bravo wrote:
anti islam would not be about hate.
you are right. not limted to hate only, but also violence
ya? want me to link a woman getting acid tossed on her face in the name of glorious islam?Beduin wrote:
orly?11 Bravo wrote:
anti islam would not be about hate.
you are right. not limted to hate only, but also violence
we could also toss acid at muslims behinde the center. that will teach them.11 Bravo wrote:
ya? want me to link a woman getting acid tossed on her face in the name of glorious islam?Beduin wrote:
orly?11 Bravo wrote:
anti islam would not be about hate.
you are right. not limted to hate only, but also violence
pancake bunny awardBeduin wrote:
we could also toss acid at muslims behinde the center. that will teach them.11 Bravo wrote:
ya? want me to link a woman getting acid tossed on her face in the name of glorious islam?
o/
11 Bravo wrote:
pancake bunny award
You're really not helping your case... So do you consider yourself a Muslim or a Dane?Beduin wrote:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … rotest.jpg11 Bravo wrote:
pancake bunny award
føk jeaah
if all you are going to do is respond with overused internet pictures then....Beduin wrote:
http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee37 … rotest.jpg11 Bravo wrote:
pancake bunny award
føk jeaah
two of them will be at the mega mosque 9/11 protest. missiles? ffs11 Bravo wrote:
if all you are going to do is respond with overused internet pictures then....
Well, you can be anti-religion in general without being a fanatic as well.Beduin wrote:
we are talking about anti islam, not anti radical islam.Turquoise wrote:
You can be against fanatical Islam without being a fanatic yourself.
Focused on atheism, yes, why not? I totally agree. But a center focused on bashing one religion with over 1.4 bill followers? You lose me here.Turquoise wrote:
I could start my own anti-religion center focused on atheism if I wanted to, but admittedly, I have no interest in doing that.
freedom of speech, private property, etc etc etcBeduin wrote:
Focused on atheism, yes, why not? I totally agree. But a center focused on bashing one religion with over 1.4 bill followers? You lose me here.Turquoise wrote:
I could start my own anti-religion center focused on atheism if I wanted to, but admittedly, I have no interest in doing that.
Well, when I asked Bravo to elaborate more on the center, he seemed to be specifically talking about fanatical Islam, not Islam in general.Beduin wrote:
Focused on atheism, yes, why not? I totally agree. But a center focused on bashing one religion with over 1.4 bill followers? You lose me here.Turquoise wrote:
I could start my own anti-religion center focused on atheism if I wanted to, but admittedly, I have no interest in doing that.
Turquoise wrote:
So, I guess he should've said "anti-fanatical Islam" center.
No.11 Bravo wrote:
freedom of speech, private property, etc etc etcBeduin wrote:
Focused on atheism, yes, why not? I totally agree. But a center focused on bashing one religion with over 1.4 bill followers? You lose me here.Turquoise wrote:
I could start my own anti-religion center focused on atheism if I wanted to, but admittedly, I have no interest in doing that.
yesBeduin wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
So, I guess he should've said "anti-fanatical Islam" center.No.11 Bravo wrote:
freedom of speech, private property, etc etc etcBeduin wrote:
Focused on atheism, yes, why not? I totally agree. But a center focused on bashing one religion with over 1.4 bill followers? You lose me here.
Thats a sweet thought. Unfortunately, thats not how human nature works. The History of humankind proves that.Turquoise wrote:
but it couldn't incite riots or encourage violent behavior toward Muslims.
I understand where you're coming from, but the way the system works here is that you have to have evidence of these things before you can block or restrict them. Granted, as I hinted earlier, there are ways that governments can get around this -- like with zoning laws.Beduin wrote:
Thats a sweet thought. Unfortunately, thats not how human nature works. The History of humankind proves that.Turquoise wrote:
but it couldn't incite riots or encourage violent behavior toward Muslims.
the way system works? I did not say anything about blocking or shutting down anything.Turquoise wrote:
I understand where you're coming from, but the way the system works here is that you have to have evidence of these things before you can block or restrict them.Beduin wrote:
Thats a sweet thought. Unfortunately, thats not how human nature works. The History of humankind proves that.Turquoise wrote:
but it couldn't incite riots or encourage violent behavior toward Muslims.
Beduin, I understand that. I'm just saying that the freedom of speech is a burden that sometimes results in conflicts because of extreme differences in views.Beduin wrote:
the way system works? I did not say anything about blocking or shutting down anything.Turquoise wrote:
I understand where you're coming from, but the way the system works here is that you have to have evidence of these things before you can block or restrict them.Beduin wrote:
Thats a sweet thought. Unfortunately, thats not how human nature works. The History of humankind proves that.
and am only adding : It can, in worst case scenario, cost livesTurquoise wrote:
Beduin, I understand that. I'm just saying that the freedom of speech is a burden that sometimes results in conflicts because of extreme differences in views.
Absolutely. Sometimes, the freer a society is, the less secure it is. Every society has to decide what balance of freedom and security they feel is optimal.Beduin wrote:
and am only adding : It can, in worst case scenario, cost livesTurquoise wrote:
Beduin, I understand that. I'm just saying that the freedom of speech is a burden that sometimes results in conflicts because of extreme differences in views.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-05 05:36:11)
We Report. You decide.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am glad Fox told me. I like to know. i used to live there. Fox Didn't " make me angry " or Stoke my fear " They just told me. - Thats all.
trollAussieReaper wrote:
We Report. You decide.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I am glad Fox told me. I like to know. i used to live there. Fox Didn't " make me angry " or Stoke my fear " They just told me. - Thats all.
I think you didn't take that second piece of info with you.
