No one is even taking into account the Boko Haram attacks and all the people they have killed

Great article.

Not everyone is using Merica#2 as a baseline, I am a Euro and have pointedly reffered to the existance of relgious conservatives in Merica.

Think the debate would be more accurate if we viewed Islam through the lens of a being a sub set of religious conservatism.

Like I won't but we should definitely play the "Piles of Dead, Chemically Deformed and Bullet-Ridden Heaps of Civilian Bodies: Americans or Muslims Guilty?" game where you insert a picture of piles of dead, near-dead, poisoned or shot-up civilians in a spoiler tag and guess if the perpetrators were Americans or Muslims. Would like to see the scores.

Did I cross this line? Who crossed this line? Should we stop studying and debating about the muslim community for fear of crossing this line?

I think we can, and should both acknowledge the inner diversity of the muslim world and the abnormally high proportion of integrists inside this community.

Obviously noone said that 400k muslims sympathetic towards terrorism would convert to 400k suicide bombers. But firstly, we're not talking about 400k, but about millions or tens of millions of this kind of radical muslims in the world - depends on how you interpret the pew report though.
Then it's not because only a few have randomly shot innocents that only these are dangerous. Several important integrist movements have been found very active in France and at least dozens of french muslims have fought for ISIS or similar organizations.

I'm not only worried about those who actually go out and kill other citizens in the street. I'm also worried about those who help spread ******ed integrist ideologies, those who help ******ed organizations such as ISIS and about those who lead a ******ed fight against several of my nation's moral values.

Sure, today islamist terrorism is certainly not life threatening for most of us in France, especially compared to countries such as Pakistan or Nigeria. And most people are actually a bit paranoid.
But that doesn't seem to be a good reason to stick our head in the sand and deny that integrism exist, that it is a problem and that it leads to more terrorism.

That's also not a reason to become a ******ed xenophobic. And sure muslims are among the first victims of this kind of terrorism.
But it sucks that I always have to say these last two sentences every time I want to discuss the extent of the problem of integrism.

This does not seem far from Banz's nazi argument.

Why cant I be down on both groups of body bag fillers?

You need to read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. One of the most influential books of the last 100 years.

One of its many brilliant premises is that dogmatic, extreme followers of opposing ideologies tend to have more in common with each other than with more moderate adherents of the same ideology. It's often just a matter of which ideology got to them first.

You can, of course. I am responding to -- admittedly in a very mean way -- the guy who wanted to say if Americans (AMERICANS!!! REALLY) had 10% of their population report that attacks against civilians were sometimes justified, we would have some real problems on our hands, but we don't, gotta keep the microscope on those fanatical barbarian Muslims for their exceptional and unique support of violence against civilians.

Of course the actual number of Americians who think attacks on civilians is justified produced by reputable pollsters is like 25% and I imagine the true number to be closer to like 75% but I digress and the ACTUAL 20th century bodybag count shows the USA#1 is a HOF-caliber civilian bodybag filler. Probably not Nazi German or Soviet Russia but like for ****s sake Al Qaeda jerks off fantasizing about putting as many civilians in graves as the US did over the last 100 years.

Mericans get a bit of a pass though because the civilian has to be far way, killed as collateral and brown.

Islam guy dont care if the civilian who is killed lives just 3 blocks away.

Proud he's my mayor. He says what others only think.


-Moroccan-born mayor of Rotterdam tells fellow Muslims who do not appreciate the 'freedoms' of living in the West to 'pack your bags and f*** off' on live TV
-Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Moroccan-born Muslim, spoke after Paris attack
-The mayor said Dutch Muslims who 'don't like freedom' can f*** off
-He added: 'Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here'
- Aboutaleb became the first immigrant mayor in the Netherlands in 2008

More:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...f-live-TV.html

I'm cutting all the random accusations of racism you are throwing at me because they are not relevant (unless you can show me where I did depict muslims as ******ed caveman).

That's indeed very worrying and I was unaware of that, but did I ask to nuke all muslim countries?
Can you link the original report?

Palestine, Irak and all the victims of chirurgical bombings would agree with that. Why wouldn't you? Don't you think there's a problem of violence awareness and not caring about who is getting bombed within Americans? I do, I simply didn't know this was to such an important extent.

Obviously, you don't make any dumb generalizations at all in your answers while I make tons of them.

I guess, but alot of the Islam guys who don't care if the civilian is a few blocks away aren't really state actors either. So once you expand that net to the USA#1, we got PLENTY of people who love to shoot up their workplaces, neighborhoods, schools. If you want to tighten the net around organized posses of people, so like not your lonewolf gunman types but organized cells of people bringing violence against the masses, but NOT state-sponsored violence, I mean the Klan brought welcomed institutional terror and violence to blacks in the South like two generations ago.

Jews are being targeted and murdered all over Europe and Israel, just for being Jews, and so many are concerned for poor Muslims who might face a backlash (which they obviously won't, in any serious way).

Mark my words: Jewish civilization will soon be dead in Europe, just as it is dead in the Middle East.

I think Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is a religious radical, for example. I don't merely disagree with him politically. I defy his presumed religious government authority. I don't merely disagree with churches who declare "spiritual war" on people and seek to oppress certain human rights. I defy their presumed religious government authority. I challenged their presumed supremacy. I question their political religious doctrine and scriptural interpretations. I don't blame religion or Christianity for them either. The religious right is rather radically conservative, so the shoe fits.

He does seem a little off his rocker

Among other things I disagree with:

False equivalency between religious fundamentalists and whatever "free spech fundamentalists" are.

Also, GWB was criticized exactly because his "your with us or against us" was curtailing free speech and intended to stiffle any form of dissent.

So let me see if I've got this straight:

When there is hate speech against Muslims, it's not hate speech. It's freedom of speech.

But when it's against other groups, then it's hate speech and must be condemned.

Je suis hypocrites?

There is this recurring theme in posts around here, and I think it needs to be addressed. I cant tell you how many times people say things like this, "freedom of speech doesnt mean you cant criticize" or "innocent until proven guilty is for courtrooms, not public opinion" or "due process only applies to the government" or something else. And people think they are being all clever and witty.

It is true that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantee certain rights to American citizens regarding speech and protection under the law. It is true that these are EXTREMELY important to a free and functioning society. They are, by a wide margin, the most important aspects of free speech, due process, etc.

But the general philosophical principles of freedom of expression, the general principle of affording due process and the presumption of innocence...these are also just vital, valuable tools for any rational, liberal free-thinking individual. Freedom of speech isnt "something that we have to do because it says so in the Constitution, but only the government has to do it thank goodness!" Free speech isnt defined as "speech that you dont get arrested for." I mean, it IS one of the definitions, but its a narrow definition.

Freedom of speech and expression are general ideological principles, not just minimum legal precepts. "Try not to get so butthurt and try not to jump to conclusions" are much closer to the truth than "thats only for trials idiot, no one is trying to lock you up."

I don't understand what you mean with the bolded. You mean Muslims won't face attacks such as these? Or this one?

^^ don't know about your whole discussion with others but based on your post:
When i speak for my own country, or city (see video above about our mayor making a statement).....we have 48 percent foreigners in Rotterdam. Many muslims, many people from former colonies. Now, some of these groups cause problems, but i don't see people from the Dutch Antilles or Surinam trying to force their way of life upon on us. Muslims do. Of course not all but it's a still a huge group that does. Do Mexicans want you to speak Spanish? Do Mexicans yell to women that they wear short skirts and are whores?

Please read this. In basicly any country it's muslims causing the problems.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...mment-73814474

I wonder how much the all of a sudden "freedom of speech" loving average Joe would react if I wore a shirt in public that said "Proud to be Muslim." Would I make it very far without being verbally assaulted or worse?

I love the Netherlands. And prefer it a thousand times over living the in the Middle East (I've lived in both). But every group has their differences. In history, the "Americans" pointed out how different the Irish and their values were. Then they pointed out the same about Eastern and Southern Europeans. Then the Chinese. Then the Japanese. Then the Hispanics. And now it's the Muslims. People assimilate. The 'radicals" die off and their children become more Dutch and so on.

nonsense

Hate speech isn't legal in the EU and the reaction to the murders didn't have its legalization as a goal.
Charlie Hebdo did not publish racist material.
Also just because they didn't publish his straw man topics, it doesn't mean they were self-censoring.

Loads of Muslims wear traditional clothing without being verbally assaulted or worse.

It wasn't a personal attack, i saw this topic the other day and read some, didn't read up the last pages. And i know that the 'hated' groups always change. We had that with immigrants from the Antilles, than the ones from Surinam, then the Italian and Turkish and later the Morrocans became 'the hated' ones. But with muslims it's based on religion while the other 'hated' groups was mainly crime-related. We don't have problems with Turkish people, although they are also muslims, it's the Moroccans trying to put their law upon us.

edit: And another thing, if our mayor would have said that about people from Suriname he would not get dead threats. He surely will get them now by having said that about muslims not wanting to live in an open and free country they should f off and leave.