Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When my husband raided a home in Afghanistan one evening, during the course of the search for bad things that kill US Soldiers and Afghan civilians both, the found a lot of writings hidden away in a wall.

After their interpreter read all of the pages, he old them that the writings were nothing sinister.

They were poetry written by the 12 year old daughter of the home.

He also said that the girl was very upset because when her family saw that she had written such poetry, about her love for a boy on their village, she likely would be stoned to death. It was a very rural village in a very hardline province.

The interpreter kept all of the writings, and destroyed them back at base.

I wish that all those who defend Islam would have to live in such a place for 30 days.

I have lived and worked in those countries.

It is beyond the comprehension of civilized humans, what occurs there.

When you defend Islam, you don't even have a conception of the depravity and horror you defend.

This is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time...

Do you dispute that this incident or this type of honor killing does not happen?

It is true. You hide your face from the horror perpetrated in the name of your religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

It's hardly hair splitting to attribute crimes to radical extremists or the entire religion. If I said Christian shoots up Sikh temple, you would shit a brick.

The hair splitting is constant with Jeff. It's tiring.

Why would I shit a brick if you said "Christians shoots up Sikh temple". I would not automatically assume or accuse you of meaning all Christians and start calling you a bigot. I would assume you meant that some folk who were Christian shot up a Sikh temple. And if they said they did it in the name of Christianity, I would accept the fact that that's what they believe. I would not start calling you names or throw out accusations for that reason. Who am I to tell those folk that they didn't do that in the name of Christianity? They said they did.

well then you are different from the many conservative posters on the Sikh temple shooting.

I don't know many conservatives who felt differently than I about this shooting. I do know the media tried to paint it that way.

Yeah right. Conservatives say "sad, another lone wolf". When Christians commit acts of terror, they are always lone wolves perverting Christianity. Yet when Muslims commit an act of terror, they are "devout". When Uganda, an 80% Christian country, passes a law making homosexuality a crime punishable by life in prison, do you say 'oh, these are really devout Christians'?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least the posters here own their hatred of Muslims. So I assume we can dispense with the charade that the "Draw Muhammad" contest was about freedom.

So let's take your side and say it was about racism. The net result was exactly what Geller said it is - in other words, they proved her correct.

I think that's what has the left so furious about Geller. Progressives so wanted this event to go off without an issue and instead, two Muslim sympathizers came out to kill.

I've marched for human rights for people in Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria (just to name a few countries) but you are painting people in such broad strokes that only people who endorse your views care about human rights.

It is possible to be opposed to religious practices used to oppress others and to not condemn every Muslim as evil. But go on, just indulge in your black and white approach to the world. I'm sure it makes you feel superior to the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

It's hardly hair splitting to attribute crimes to radical extremists or the entire religion. If I said Christian shoots up Sikh temple, you would shit a brick.

The hair splitting is constant with Jeff. It's tiring.

Why would I shit a brick if you said "Christians shoots up Sikh temple". I would not automatically assume or accuse you of meaning all Christians and start calling you a bigot. I would assume you meant that some folk who were Christian shot up a Sikh temple. And if they said they did it in the name of Christianity, I would accept the fact that that's what they believe. I would not start calling you names or throw out accusations for that reason. Who am I to tell those folk that they didn't do that in the name of Christianity? They said they did.

well then you are different from the many conservative posters on the Sikh temple shooting.

I don't know many conservatives who felt differently than I about this shooting. I do know the media tried to paint it that way.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:


If a group committed to freedom of expression hosted a contest of Muhammad cartoons, I would feel differently, though I would hope they would address other religions as well. But, when a group that is engaged in an ongoing hate campaign against Islam hosts such a contest, their motives cannot be ignored.

It is unfortunate that you so willingly ignore Geller's Islamophobia and deem her worthy of praise and support. I am sure you wouldn't so easily ignore or excuse racism or anti-Semitism.

There is no need to address other religions because no-one is being murdered for drawing cartoons about other religions.

I am not a fan of Pamela Geller. Her website attempts to collate all the news of atrocities committed in the name of Islam. That is fine - it is hardly fair and balanced but I could say the same thing about the CAIR website. But her reader feedback is filled with racist and Islamophobic statements which she does not appear to stop. So I don't want to be associated with her, but that does not mean that everything she does is wrong.

And I am in strong support of the "draw Muhammed" event. I am in support of someone being able to say "if the Prophet Muhammed were alive today, he would be aghast the actions of ISIS and Al-Queda. Or as a cartoonist would express this, by showing a drawing of Muhammed crying while viewing a terrorist act. As far as I could tell (the media was not very helpful in showing the drawings), the drawings at the contest were like this, and not at all racist or Islamaphobic.

There are racists who try to attach themselves to this event, but the event shouldn't be defined by them, anymore than Islam should be defined by the actions of a few terrorists.

That has been said over and over again . There is no religion on earth that promotes rape, murder, torture, oppression, or war and if you can't comprehend that , this discussion is pointless.....

Anonymous wrote:And your absolute lack of compassion or care that millions of women and girls live under a religion that can and will kill them for writing poetry, daring to be raped, etc, as well as not allowing them basic human rights is stunning, and telling.

Your implication that people somehow condone the death of innocent beings is a frightening display of your inability to engage in simple comprehension. You demonstrate the very point of this thread in your attitude. A disgusting disinhibited double standard that only falls back on rhetoric, self-sympathy, and avoids any useful discourse.

Anonymous wrote:When my husband raided a home in Afghanistan one evening, during the course of the search for bad things that kill US Soldiers and Afghan civilians both, the found a lot of writings hidden away in a wall.

After their interpreter read all of the pages, he old them that the writings were nothing sinister.

They were poetry written by the 12 year old daughter of the home.

He also said that the girl was very upset because when her family saw that she had written such poetry, about her love for a boy on their village, she likely would be stoned to death. It was a very rural village in a very hardline province.

The interpreter kept all of the writings, and destroyed them back at base.

I wish that all those who defend Islam would have to live in such a place for 30 days.

I have lived and worked in those countries.

It is beyond the comprehension of civilized humans, what occurs there.

When you defend Islam, you don't even have a conception of the depravity and horror you defend.

This is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time...

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_left_has_islam_all_wrong_bill_maher_pamela_geller_and_the_reality_progressives_must_face/


"This is no call to disrespect Muslims as people, but we should not hesitate to speak frankly about the aspects of their faith we find problematic. But it’s not up to progressives to suggest how an ideology based on belief without evidence might be reformed. Rather, we should cease relativizing and proudly espouse, as alternatives to blind obedience to ancient texts, reason, progress, consensus-based solutions, and the wonderful panoply of other Enlightenment ideals underpinning our Constitution and the liberties characterizing Western countries.

The only path to victory in this war in defense of free speech lies through courage. We cannot wimp out and blame the victims for drawing cartoons, writing novels, or making movies. We need to heed Gérard Biard, Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief, who declared, as he received the PEN award, that “They don’t want us to write and draw. We must write and draw. They don’t want us to think and laugh. We must think and laugh. They don’t want us to debate. We must debate.”"

In doing as he urges, we will give the terrorists too many targets to attack and convince them that we will not surrender, not cede an inch. That means the media needs to begin showing Charlie Hedbo’s Muhammad cartoons. We must stop traducing reason by branding people “Islamophobes,” and start celebrating our secularism, remembering that only it offers true freedom for the religious and non-religious alike. And we should reaffirm our humanistic values, in our conviction that we have, as Carlyle wrote, “One life – a little gleam of time between two eternities,” and need to make the most of it for ourselves and others while we can. There is nothing else.

This is not a battle we have chosen; the battle has chosen us.

It’s time to fight back, and hard.

Jeffrey Tayler is a contributing editor at the Atlantic. His seventh book, "Topless Jihadis -- Inside Femen, the World's Most Provocative Activist Group," is out now as an Atlantic e-book. Follow @JeffreyTayler1 on Twitter.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/10/the_left_has_islam_all_wrong_bill_maher_pamela_geller_and_the_reality_progressives_must_face/

"The meme “Islam – the religion of peace” might evoke snickering now, but it was wildly inaccurate long before 9/11 and the plague of Islamist terrorism. For starters, the Prophet Muhammad was a triumphant warlord leading military campaigns that spread Islam throughout Arabia and initiated the creation of one of the largest empires the world has known. His was a messianic undertaking. He preceded his invasions by demands that populations either convert or face the sword. Verses sanctifying violence against “infidels” abound in the Quran. Even the favorite verse of Islam’s apologists, Surat al-Baqarah 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”), prefaces a warning that Hellfire awaits those worshipping anything besides God. The real meaning of the word “Islam” is, in fact, surrender — to God and the inerrant, unchallengeable path He lays out for us. Surrendering denotes war, groveling, and humiliation – not exactly the kind of behavior liberals tend to value."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

It's hardly hair splitting to attribute crimes to radical extremists or the entire religion. If I said Christian shoots up Sikh temple, you would shit a brick.

The hair splitting is constant with Jeff. It's tiring.

Why would I shit a brick if you said "Christians shoots up Sikh temple". I would not automatically assume or accuse you of meaning all Christians and start calling you a bigot. I would assume you meant that some folk who were Christian shot up a Sikh temple. And if they said they did it in the name of Christianity, I would accept the fact that that's what they believe. I would not start calling you names or throw out accusations for that reason. Who am I to tell those folk that they didn't do that in the name of Christianity? They said they did.

well then you are different from the many conservative posters on the Sikh temple shooting.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

The difference between "all Muslims" and "some Muslims" is hardly a "hair". If you feel that I am misunderstanding you, there is nothing to prevent you from offering a clarification. How hard is it to say, "Oh, I didn't mean that 'Islam kills gays' but rather 'some Muslims kill gays'"?

Because the governments of those countries that kill gay people are the ones that are perpetuating these crimes. If someone kills a gay individual in this country, our legal system pursues it as murder. If someone does that in some of the Islamic countries, it is not pursued as murder. In fact, it is often those very governments that impose the death sentence on someone because they are gay.

That is a problem with those governments (which are a small minority of governments in countries with Muslims majorities), not the religion. Why doesn't the kill the gay law in Uganda reflect on the entire Christian religion? But, again, given the opportunity to clarify that you don't mean the entire religion, you pass on the chance.

It does. Which is why I always distinguish between Radical Muslims and Muslims. You are the one saying I do not. Geller does the same. I can't clarify your own mindset. The real difference here is what you and I consider radical. My idea of radical is a lot broader than yours, and that's due to to the behavior of the individuals. You keep stating it's a 'small minority'. Seems that 'small minority' is wreaking extraordinary amounts of havoc on the otherwise civilized world. And it seems that the 'small minority' of the countries that subscribe to these barbaric actions are sponsoring large amounts of terror.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

The difference between "all Muslims" and "some Muslims" is hardly a "hair". If you feel that I am misunderstanding you, there is nothing to prevent you from offering a clarification. How hard is it to say, "Oh, I didn't mean that 'Islam kills gays' but rather 'some Muslims kill gays'"?

Because the governments of those countries that kill gay people are the ones that are perpetuating these crimes. If someone kills a gay individual in this country, our legal system pursues it as murder. If someone does that in some of the Islamic countries, it is not pursued as murder. In fact, it is often those very governments that impose the death sentence on someone because they are gay.

That is a problem with those governments (which are a small minority of governments in countries with Muslims majorities), not the religion. Why doesn't the kill the gay law in Uganda reflect on the entire Christian religion? But, again, given the opportunity to clarify that you don't mean the entire religion, you pass on the chance.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

The difference between "all Muslims" and "some Muslims" is hardly a "hair". If you feel that I am misunderstanding you, there is nothing to prevent you from offering a clarification. How hard is it to say, "Oh, I didn't mean that 'Islam kills gays' but rather 'some Muslims kill gays'"?

Because the governments of those countries that kill gay people are the ones that are perpetuating these crimes. If someone kills a gay individual in this country, our legal system pursues it as murder. If someone does that in some of the Islamic countries, it is not pursued as murder. In fact, it is often those very governments that impose the death sentence on someone because they are gay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

It's hardly hair splitting to attribute crimes to radical extremists or the entire religion. If I said Christian shoots up Sikh temple, you would shit a brick.

The hair splitting is constant with Jeff. It's tiring.

Why would I shit a brick if you said "Christians shoots up Sikh temple". I would not automatically assume or accuse you of meaning all Christians and start calling you a bigot. I would assume you meant that some folk who were Christian shot up a Sikh temple. And if they said they did it in the name of Christianity, I would accept the fact that that's what they believe. I would not start calling you names or throw out accusations for that reason. Who am I to tell those folk that they didn't do that in the name of Christianity? They said they did.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat each person as an individual. That means the Muslim woman who runs our local store I frequent, I adore. We have great conversations. Ditto any other INDIVIDUAL I meet, regardless of race and/or religion. Where I draw the line, is with those individuals who form a group that goes on to support terror, such as ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah. There groups are exactly what Geller denounces.

Your own words contradict what you are saying here. When I asked posters to challenge a poster who wrote that "Islam kills gay men daily", you replied that this was true. You didn't correct the poster to say that only "radical Muslims" killed gays, but insisted that it was true that "Islam" kills gays. You have had plenty of chances in this thread correct any misperceptions that you were not referring to all Muslims or the entire religion. Yet, you have not done that but only doubled down. Go tell that woman who runs your local store that you believe Islam kills gays daily and subjugates women and see how that conversation goes.

You are (typically) splitting hairs, which is when I start ignoring you. When you start doing this, it's because you have no point.

It's hardly hair splitting to attribute crimes to radical extremists or the entire religion. If I said Christian shoots up Sikh temple, you would shit a brick.