So what now? How feels Apple people by using such symbol on the front but always splitting on it on backstage?
Apple has guidelines. You can freely look up any offensive information in Safari.
How many of us would draw Mohammed? I bet most of us won't either but we value others' rights to do so.
----
You can't "re-educate" extremists. You can only hope to contain them.
Your response seems to suggest that you're incapable of discerning context, and like to nitpick. (I think can reasonably guess what your response to this will be, if you do respond).
I stated what I thought your context was implying. If you weren't asserting that fatwa mean a decree to murder then when did you mean by it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
That's a complete crock. Without religion these cowards would still find a way to justify their actions. People ultimately kill because they are afraid. Fear is the killer. Religion is just the excuse in this case.
That's worse crock. There is no way that one can justify a silly counterfactual assertion like that.
You really think that Islam is the root of people doing harm to each other, not simply fearful people raised in a warped, fearful environment? If so, how do you explain all the atrocities committed by man that were not Islamic fundamentalists?
Anecdotally, I've been around the world and I've seen the same people everywhere I go. There are people who take advantage of others, people who care for strangers that can do nothing for them, people that are afraid of anything different, and people are fascinated in anything different. I have seen no connection that religion (or lack thereof) makes one better or worse for society.
Add 'counterfactual' to the list of things you perhaps have trouble processing today.
That aside, I think it is incumbent upon you (and Ireland) to explain why this particular "religion is the excuse" in so many of these cases. I do not see a whole lot of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews, etc. around the world (Canada, USA, Australia, China, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, India, France, Britain, to name just the one that come to mind from the past few months) using their religion as an "excuse" for violence. There are, of course, isolated instances one can point in each of these places where one religion or the other may have manifested itself as an excuse (e.g., Buddhists in Myanmar), but my point is, I cannot think of dozens of instances of such violence with any of those individual religions in, say, the past year in so many different countries around the world.
Btw, Ireland refers to "fear"? Fear of what?
(As to context, either you got what I was saying or you didn't. I believe you did, but are simply nitpicking. If you didn't get it, move along.)
Add 'counterfactual' to the list of things you perhaps have trouble processing today.
What did I state that didn't occur?
That aside, I think it is incumbent upon you (and Ireland) to explain why this particular "religion is the excuse" in so many of these cases. I do not see a whole lot of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews, etc. around the world (Canada, USA, Australia, China, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, India, France, Britain, to name just the one that come to mind from the past few months) using their religion as an "excuse" for violence. There are, of course, isolated instances one can point in each of these places where one religion or the other may have manifested itself as an excuse (e.g., Buddhists in Myanmar), but my point is, I cannot think of dozens of instances of such violence with any of those individual religions in, say, the past year in so many different countries around the world.
You're the one that is making the argument that a particular "religion is the excuse," not either of us. As, I thought, clearly stated, the violence is not inherent to the religion, just as it's not to inherent to any other religion that has caused great harm to others under the name of their god.
Btw, Ireland refers to "fear"? Fear of what?
That's a very odd question. Why would you think there is a single, specific fear? Are you assuming the fear is wholly rational or irrational?
(As to context, either you got what I was saying or you didn't. I believe you did, but are simply nitpicking. If you didn't get it, move along.)
What I am taking from your comments is a rampant disdain for Muslims. I find that appealing, especially in light of the many longtime commenter on this board whom you've known for years that have stated they are followers of Islam.
Until you've lived under threat of death for not walking lock step, I don't think anyone can judge the Muslim masses for staying silent.
It's going to take uncommon bravery to change this situation.
I'm afraid, though, that there might not be enough time for change to occur through education and reform.
The one thing I can't help thinking... When people say that liberals are appeasers, it makes me wonder what they feel is the solution. Slaughter? If that is their answer then who becomes the fascists... the ugly beasts. This aint an easy fix.
Until you've lived under threat of death for not walking lock step, I don't think anyone can judge the Muslim masses for staying silent.
It's going to take uncommon bravery to change this situation.
That certainly isn't me. Even yesterday I was talking about a story I read about Navajos receiving water only once a month by truck and having to ration to just 7 gallons per person per day, which includes bathing. Even when I'm "roughing it" there is a spigot with an unlimited amount of water on the camp site.
I'm afraid, though, that there might not be enough time for change to occur through education and reform.
Education takes time, perhaps even many generations before there is a cultural shift*, but historically it does happen. I don't think the future will be any different.
* It can happen much faster but it usually occurs after an exceptionally horrific event.
The one thing I can't help thinking... When people say that liberals are appeasers it makes me wonder what they feel is the solution. Slaughter? If that is their answer then who becomes the fascists... the ugly beasts. This aint an easy fix.
Apple][ clearly stated that he wants to kill all potential offenders without question, which means all the offenders that are directly born from the previous slaughter, and so on. I can't see that as anything but shortsighted. Perhaps if we didn't resort to violence to resolve non-violent issues nations wouldn't be creating so much animosity in future generations.
I recently watched the Top Gear Patagonia Special. When I first read about the story I thought it was being trumped up but watching the video of the attacks they endured even as they were fleeing Argentina with police escort over something foolish I came to an even better understanding of how good I've had it even when my life has been at its worst.
What I am most irreversibly offended by is the fact that the vast majority of Muslim religious leaders don't have the courage to issue a fatwa against the people of their own faith who are dragging their revered religion -- and their Prophet -- through the mud in the most grotesque way. Think murdered schoolchildren, abducted young girls, car bombs by the dozen, suicide bombings, public beheadings on social media.... I could go on and on with an utterly depraved and depressing list.
Charlie Hebdo is but the latest example of this depravity.
For example, can anyone name even one Muslim religious leader who issued a fatwa against, say, Osama Bin Laden? The leaders of Boko Haram? The leaders of ISIL? If not, why not?
It's like Slurpy pointed out earlier, 1.6 billion Muslims shouldn't have to apologise or weigh in on the actions of extremists who don't represent them. If someone of any grouping (ethnicity, religion, sexuality) commits an atrocity, people use word association to link the atrocity to that grouping, especially if it happens frequently but the assumptions made for the link have to be justified. If someone kills wrongly in the name of a country, should the people of that country have to apologise or condemn every action? The Catholic church had their child abuse scandal and the cases were widespread and the same sort of thing happened where religious leaders were called to speak out but this isn't done for similar actions with non-religious people for the sole reason that there is no common link that can be associated with them.
Silence unfortunately implies support to a lot of people. There have been polls done that show some support of the terrorist activities:
That's from a sample of about 1,000 people. If that was a representative sample then that would be worrying because that's more than the Muslim population of France but there needs to be strong evidence and a reasonable, effective response to any problems found.
Some Muslim clerics issued Fatwas against ISIS but this is all made up so it's not like issuing a Fatwa has any significance:
Even though I think that Bill Maher is a weasly, little liberal and I refuse to watch his show, even though I have HBO, he is correct in this statement:
Bill Maher didn’t hold back Wednesday night, blasting “hundreds of millions” of the world’s Muslims for allegedly supporting the Islamic terrorist massacre of cartoonists, writers, and editors at a Parisian satirical magazine that has mocked the Prophet Muhammad.
He had a debate with Ben Affleck last year on this subject:
[VIDEO]
He brought up a Pew poll that said how many Muslims in Egypt (88% - they issued a correction from the article title) and Pakistan (67%) would support the death penalty for leaving the religion:
Affleck admitted he'd have a problem with that in any circumstance but clearly hadn't been aware of this. Egypt and Pakistan are among the highest Islamic countries in the world (click the percentage of muslim population header):
If those polls are representative then again, that is cause for concern because that's nearly 200 million people.
This goes some way to explaining why the more peaceful parts of the Muslim community aren't more outspoken too because the violent portions of the religion can attack them for it.
It's not enough to identify a problem, there needs to be an effective solution. A solution that is often suggested is to deport Muslims in Western societies and keep them contained but that would inevitably harm peaceful Muslims. In Egypt, they removed a president in 2011 by force and had a democratic election. The Egyptian people then voted an Islamist back into power in 2012, free to implement Sharia/Islamic Law. Then they had a military coup to remove that guy in 2013:
If they are left to sort things out by themselves, it can take far longer for things to progress towards a more peaceful way of life. If a community is raised under a religious regime then how can they ever escape that? All dangerous religions are designed to keep people within the same faith, the people who wrote the texts knew that this was an important element of control - they also have a common element of targeting the young by controlling their education. They'd grow in population and become an even more serious threat to other countries.
It's a difficult task trying to get people to become more liberal because forcing people to be liberal is contradictory. If you give people the freedom of religion, free speech and so on and they choose to be oppressive, forcing them otherwise is taking away their freedom to choose. Schools play an important role and religious schools should be closed. Legal policies should be formed on the basis that religion is not based on evidence and aim to promote morality at the expense of promoting fiction and oppression. If someone made a private school surrounding the idea that aliens were our masters and taught that in their curriculum, I highly doubt it would be allowed to exist but replace aliens with God or Allah and it gets reverential treatment for no other reasons than the amount of people who believe it and our cultural heritage but those reasons aren't good enough.
Whether this world was created or evolved, there is still only one law: Survival of the fittest.
Organized religions were established as a result of this singular law. Us against them.
In time of plenty it is much easier to convince oneself that peace prevails, but the planet is just three missed meals away form total anarchy.
The islamist extremist are striking the west because the west has plenty and they do not. They become disillusioned that they are fighting for their religion when in fact they are fighting for survival.
If those polls are representative then again, that is cause for concern because that's nearly 200 million people.
I believe that they are definitely representative, as I've been following similar polls for more than a decade, and many other countries also tell a similar story. Even polls from certain western countries show that a not small percentage of immigrants are radical extremists.
I have also seen that Bill Maher vs Ben Afleck clip, and Ben Afleck is clearly out of his league and comes off as quite ignorant and unaware of basic facts.
Whether this world was created or evolved, there is still only one law: Survival of the fittest.
Organized religions were established as a result of this singular law. Us against them.
In time of plenty it is much easier to convince oneself that peace prevails, but the planet is just three missed meals away form total anarchy.
The islamist extremist are striking the west because the west has plenty and they do not. They become disillusioned that they are fighting for their religion when in fact they are fighting for survival.
Hmmm... interesting theory.
I mean, you might be right but I've never heard terrorists scream that they are fighting for bread. The Charlie Hebdo killers screamed that they have avenged Allah.
Organized religions were established as a result of this singular law. Us against them.
1) Welcome back.
2) I don't think it was ever about "us against them," but about general survival. Religion creates a form that, at its time by the interpreters, helps create a more coherent and stable society. Remove fear of the unknown by supply answers and set laws for civilized actions that benefit the whole of the community, at that time.
You're the one that is making the argument that a particular "religion is the excuse," not either of us. As, I thought, clearly stated, the violence is not inherent to the religion, just as it's not to inherent to any other religion that has caused great harm to others under the name of their god.
--
That's a very odd question. Why would you think there is a single, specific fear? Are you assuming the fear is wholly rational or irrational?
--
What I am taking from your comments is a rampant disdain for Muslims. I find that appealing, especially in light of the many longtime commenter on this board whom you've known for years that have stated they are followers of Islam.
Your post is full of unfortunate non-sequiturs that don't even merit the trouble of an intelligent response.
I am quite disappointed (as I am sure you are too).
Which is why western nations try to tactically kill or capture these extremists. There is no country to fight, just loosely connected groups of extremists. Also need to spend more on education and close those damn madrasahs (spelling?)
You missed the point. "Tactical" or "surgical" killing is not possible in a war. There is no country to fight. There is an entire religion to fight. Do you really believe these radicals do their work in isolation, without support from the vast majority of muslims? Have you forgotten the joy in Tehran when 911 occurred? Get your head out of the sand.
The only solution is to eliminate islam wherever you see it from democratic societies. Remove them. Send them back and let them kill each other. Who gives a damn. They have NO right to take away MY right as a non-muslim to think as I please in my own country. Interesting comment someone made - "Where muslims are a minority, they are concerned with minority rights. Where muslims are a majority, there are NO minority rights."
Do you really believe these radicals do their work in isolation, without support from the vast majority of muslims
Yes, I believe that nut jobs across the globe are not getting support from at least 50% of those in their selected nation, religion, "race" or whatever other classification they or you wish to impose.
Do you think that over 50% of the group(s) you associate with would agree with the nutty things about genocide you desire?
The only solution is to eliminate islam wherever you see it from democratic societies. Remove them. Send them back and let them kill each other. Who gives a damn. They have NO right to take away MY right as a non-muslim to think as I please in my own country. Interesting comment someone made - "Where muslims are a minority, they are concerned with minority rights. Where muslims are a majority, there are NO minority rights."
Then please elucidate me as to how I'm so wrong to say that legal decrees are wrong and that all people of a religion are not evil scumbags.
There is really nothing much to elucidate when your comprehension skills -- when not distorted by your biases and your overwrought generalizations -- need serious retooling. For starters, you completely ignored the main point in my original post; then misdefined what I meant my fatwa in the context of that original post; then you attributed things that Ireland said (which I quoted) to me; then you essentially made arguments about how counterfactuals (in Ireland's) post were the same as empirical evidence I was citing in my post; and finally, you've been posting overgeneralized crap like how I am somehow supposedly referring to people as "evil scumbags" because I apparently have "rampant disdain" for them -- there is nothing whatsoever in any of my posts, except in your delusional imaginings, to suggest either.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can fix your reading comprehension issues for you. Perhaps actually rereading what I wrote might help. If not, I don't know what to say...
Comments
Apple has guidelines. You can freely look up any offensive information in Safari.
How many of us would draw Mohammed? I bet most of us won't either but we value others' rights to do so.
----
You can't "re-educate" extremists. You can only hope to contain them.
Your response seems to suggest that you're incapable of discerning context, and like to nitpick. (I think can reasonably guess what your response to this will be, if you do respond).
I stated what I thought your context was implying. If you weren't asserting that fatwa mean a decree to murder then when did you mean by it?
That's a complete crock. Without religion these cowards would still find a way to justify their actions. People ultimately kill because they are afraid. Fear is the killer. Religion is just the excuse in this case.
That's worse crock. There is no way that one can justify a silly counterfactual assertion like that.
You really think that Islam is the root of people doing harm to each other, not simply fearful people raised in a warped, fearful environment? If so, how do you explain all the atrocities committed by man that were not Islamic fundamentalists?
Anecdotally, I've been around the world and I've seen the same people everywhere I go. There are people who take advantage of others, people who care for strangers that can do nothing for them, people that are afraid of anything different, and people are fascinated in anything different. I have seen no connection that religion (or lack thereof) makes one better or worse for society.
Add 'counterfactual' to the list of things you perhaps have trouble processing today.
That aside, I think it is incumbent upon you (and Ireland) to explain why this particular "religion is the excuse" in so many of these cases. I do not see a whole lot of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Jews, etc. around the world (Canada, USA, Australia, China, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, India, France, Britain, to name just the one that come to mind from the past few months) using their religion as an "excuse" for violence. There are, of course, isolated instances one can point in each of these places where one religion or the other may have manifested itself as an excuse (e.g., Buddhists in Myanmar), but my point is, I cannot think of dozens of instances of such violence with any of those individual religions in, say, the past year in so many different countries around the world.
Btw, Ireland refers to "fear"? Fear of what?
(As to context, either you got what I was saying or you didn't. I believe you did, but are simply nitpicking. If you didn't get it, move along.)
Btw, Ireland refers to "fear"? Fear of what?
Change?
(btw - apparently the two shitheads involved have been killed)
What did I state that didn't occur?
You're the one that is making the argument that a particular "religion is the excuse," not either of us. As, I thought, clearly stated, the violence is not inherent to the religion, just as it's not to inherent to any other religion that has caused great harm to others under the name of their god.
That's a very odd question. Why would you think there is a single, specific fear? Are you assuming the fear is wholly rational or irrational?
What I am taking from your comments is a rampant disdain for Muslims. I find that appealing, especially in light of the many longtime commenter on this board whom you've known for years that have stated they are followers of Islam.
2 confirmed culprits and we want to vilify and destroy 1.57 billion people for it. It saddens me.
We should probably eliminate all the Sikhs, too, since they were turban-like headwear¡
2 confirmed culprits and we want to vilify and destroy 1.57 billion people for it. It saddens me.
We should probably eliminate all the Sikhs, too, since they were turban-like headwear¡
It saddens me as well.
Until you've lived under threat of death for not walking lock step, I don't think anyone can judge the Muslim masses for staying silent.
It's going to take uncommon bravery to change this situation.
I'm afraid, though, that there might not be enough time for change to occur through education and reform.
The one thing I can't help thinking... When people say that liberals are appeasers, it makes me wonder what they feel is the solution. Slaughter? If that is their answer then who becomes the fascists... the ugly beasts. This aint an easy fix.
That certainly isn't me. Even yesterday I was talking about a story I read about Navajos receiving water only once a month by truck and having to ration to just 7 gallons per person per day, which includes bathing. Even when I'm "roughing it" there is a spigot with an unlimited amount of water on the camp site.
Education takes time, perhaps even many generations before there is a cultural shift*, but historically it does happen. I don't think the future will be any different.
* It can happen much faster but it usually occurs after an exceptionally horrific event.
Apple][ clearly stated that he wants to kill all potential offenders without question, which means all the offenders that are directly born from the previous slaughter, and so on. I can't see that as anything but shortsighted. Perhaps if we didn't resort to violence to resolve non-violent issues nations wouldn't be creating so much animosity in future generations.
I recently watched the Top Gear Patagonia Special. When I first read about the story I thought it was being trumped up but watching the video of the attacks they endured even as they were fleeing Argentina with police escort over something foolish I came to an even better understanding of how good I've had it even when my life has been at its worst.
It's like Slurpy pointed out earlier, 1.6 billion Muslims shouldn't have to apologise or weigh in on the actions of extremists who don't represent them. If someone of any grouping (ethnicity, religion, sexuality) commits an atrocity, people use word association to link the atrocity to that grouping, especially if it happens frequently but the assumptions made for the link have to be justified. If someone kills wrongly in the name of a country, should the people of that country have to apologise or condemn every action? The Catholic church had their child abuse scandal and the cases were widespread and the same sort of thing happened where religious leaders were called to speak out but this isn't done for similar actions with non-religious people for the sole reason that there is no common link that can be associated with them.
Silence unfortunately implies support to a lot of people. There have been polls done that show some support of the terrorist activities:
http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795
That's from a sample of about 1,000 people. If that was a representative sample then that would be worrying because that's more than the Muslim population of France but there needs to be strong evidence and a reasonable, effective response to any problems found.
Some Muslim clerics issued Fatwas against ISIS but this is all made up so it's not like issuing a Fatwa has any significance:
http://www.npr.org/2014/09/25/351277631/prominent-muslim-sheikh-issues-fatwa-against-isis-violence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/isis-terror-threat-leading-british-muslims-issue-fatwa-condemning-terror-group-9702042.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslim-cleric-in-Kerala-issues-fatwa-against-ISIS-jihadists-sell-several-dozens-of-Yazidi-women/articleshow/41281217.cms
The extremists have their own interpretation of the religious texts so a Fatwa from people with a different interpretation isn't going to do anything.
He had a debate with Ben Affleck last year on this subject:
[VIDEO]
He brought up a Pew poll that said how many Muslims in Egypt (88% - they issued a correction from the article title) and Pakistan (67%) would support the death penalty for leaving the religion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01/64-percent-of-muslims-in-egypt-and-pakistan-support-the-death-penalty-for-leaving-islam/
Affleck admitted he'd have a problem with that in any circumstance but clearly hadn't been aware of this. Egypt and Pakistan are among the highest Islamic countries in the world (click the percentage of muslim population header):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
If those polls are representative then again, that is cause for concern because that's nearly 200 million people.
This goes some way to explaining why the more peaceful parts of the Muslim community aren't more outspoken too because the violent portions of the religion can attack them for it.
It's not enough to identify a problem, there needs to be an effective solution. A solution that is often suggested is to deport Muslims in Western societies and keep them contained but that would inevitably harm peaceful Muslims. In Egypt, they removed a president in 2011 by force and had a democratic election. The Egyptian people then voted an Islamist back into power in 2012, free to implement Sharia/Islamic Law. Then they had a military coup to remove that guy in 2013:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Egyptian_coup_d'état
They had another election in 2014:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/03/abdel-fatah-al-sisi-presidential-election-vote-egypt
If they are left to sort things out by themselves, it can take far longer for things to progress towards a more peaceful way of life. If a community is raised under a religious regime then how can they ever escape that? All dangerous religions are designed to keep people within the same faith, the people who wrote the texts knew that this was an important element of control - they also have a common element of targeting the young by controlling their education. They'd grow in population and become an even more serious threat to other countries.
It's a difficult task trying to get people to become more liberal because forcing people to be liberal is contradictory. If you give people the freedom of religion, free speech and so on and they choose to be oppressive, forcing them otherwise is taking away their freedom to choose. Schools play an important role and religious schools should be closed. Legal policies should be formed on the basis that religion is not based on evidence and aim to promote morality at the expense of promoting fiction and oppression. If someone made a private school surrounding the idea that aliens were our masters and taught that in their curriculum, I highly doubt it would be allowed to exist but replace aliens with God or Allah and it gets reverential treatment for no other reasons than the amount of people who believe it and our cultural heritage but those reasons aren't good enough.
Whether this world was created or evolved, there is still only one law: Survival of the fittest.
Organized religions were established as a result of this singular law. Us against them.
In time of plenty it is much easier to convince oneself that peace prevails, but the planet is just three missed meals away form total anarchy.
The islamist extremist are striking the west because the west has plenty and they do not. They become disillusioned that they are fighting for their religion when in fact they are fighting for survival.
If those polls are representative then again, that is cause for concern because that's nearly 200 million people.
I believe that they are definitely representative, as I've been following similar polls for more than a decade, and many other countries also tell a similar story. Even polls from certain western countries show that a not small percentage of immigrants are radical extremists.
I have also seen that Bill Maher vs Ben Afleck clip, and Ben Afleck is clearly out of his league and comes off as quite ignorant and unaware of basic facts.
Whether this world was created or evolved, there is still only one law: Survival of the fittest.
Organized religions were established as a result of this singular law. Us against them.
In time of plenty it is much easier to convince oneself that peace prevails, but the planet is just three missed meals away form total anarchy.
The islamist extremist are striking the west because the west has plenty and they do not. They become disillusioned that they are fighting for their religion when in fact they are fighting for survival.
Hmmm... interesting theory.
I mean, you might be right but I've never heard terrorists scream that they are fighting for bread. The Charlie Hebdo killers screamed that they have avenged Allah.
Shut up and go away, that’s what now. Troll somewhere else.
1) Welcome back.
2) I don't think it was ever about "us against them," but about general survival. Religion creates a form that, at its time by the interpreters, helps create a more coherent and stable society. Remove fear of the unknown by supply answers and set laws for civilized actions that benefit the whole of the community, at that time.
What did I state that didn't occur?
--
You're the one that is making the argument that a particular "religion is the excuse," not either of us. As, I thought, clearly stated, the violence is not inherent to the religion, just as it's not to inherent to any other religion that has caused great harm to others under the name of their god.
--
That's a very odd question. Why would you think there is a single, specific fear? Are you assuming the fear is wholly rational or irrational?
--
What I am taking from your comments is a rampant disdain for Muslims. I find that appealing, especially in light of the many longtime commenter on this board whom you've known for years that have stated they are followers of Islam.
Your post is full of unfortunate non-sequiturs that don't even merit the trouble of an intelligent response.
I am quite disappointed (as I am sure you are too).
Then please elucidate me as to how I'm so wrong to say that legal decrees are wrong and that all people of a religion are not evil scumbags.
Which is why western nations try to tactically kill or capture these extremists. There is no country to fight, just loosely connected groups of extremists. Also need to spend more on education and close those damn madrasahs (spelling?)
You missed the point. "Tactical" or "surgical" killing is not possible in a war. There is no country to fight. There is an entire religion to fight. Do you really believe these radicals do their work in isolation, without support from the vast majority of muslims? Have you forgotten the joy in Tehran when 911 occurred? Get your head out of the sand.
The only solution is to eliminate islam wherever you see it from democratic societies. Remove them. Send them back and let them kill each other. Who gives a damn. They have NO right to take away MY right as a non-muslim to think as I please in my own country. Interesting comment someone made - "Where muslims are a minority, they are concerned with minority rights. Where muslims are a majority, there are NO minority rights."
Yes, I believe that nut jobs across the globe are not getting support from at least 50% of those in their selected nation, religion, "race" or whatever other classification they or you wish to impose.
Do you think that over 50% of the group(s) you associate with would agree with the nutty things about genocide you desire?
The only solution is to eliminate islam wherever you see it from democratic societies. Remove them. Send them back and let them kill each other. Who gives a damn. They have NO right to take away MY right as a non-muslim to think as I please in my own country. Interesting comment someone made - "Where muslims are a minority, they are concerned with minority rights. Where muslims are a majority, there are NO minority rights."
Do you live in a fascist country?
Possibly of some significance regarding the timing of this attack, today is a day known as "Mawlid": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawlid
Then please elucidate me as to how I'm so wrong to say that legal decrees are wrong and that all people of a religion are not evil scumbags.
There is really nothing much to elucidate when your comprehension skills -- when not distorted by your biases and your overwrought generalizations -- need serious retooling. For starters, you completely ignored the main point in my original post; then misdefined what I meant my fatwa in the context of that original post; then you attributed things that Ireland said (which I quoted) to me; then you essentially made arguments about how counterfactuals (in Ireland's) post were the same as empirical evidence I was citing in my post; and finally, you've been posting overgeneralized crap like how I am somehow supposedly referring to people as "evil scumbags" because I apparently have "rampant disdain" for them -- there is nothing whatsoever in any of my posts, except in your delusional imaginings, to suggest either.
Unfortunately, I don't think I can fix your reading comprehension issues for you. Perhaps actually rereading what I wrote might help. If not, I don't know what to say...