So THIS is the trailer trolling muslims that got the American killed

Hip-Hop-Bulls

All Star
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
3,356
Reputation
325
Daps
5,811
So u say im intolerant of Islam, but u cant tell me where im wrong when i ask you to steer me right. You sound like an apologist. I dont need to watch Fox News bro. Yes i know about the teachings of both religions, but more importantly i know about the actions of those who profess it. Muslims in the MENA region are just practicing their religion when they destroy and kill. Muhammad spread the word by the sword, that was his example to his followers. Christ had a totally different message; One of love, and salvation.

Christians are no more holy than muslims, that's for sure. When muslims took control over egypt, they were in joy they were no longer in control by the Christians. Muslims allowed the people to practice other religions, while Christians killed theirs. When the muslims controlled europe for 700 years, they brought them OUT of the dark ages, w/o them the world as we know it would be totally different. Muslims have strict laws they follow enabling them a decent amount of freedom that christians don't have since they don't follow the teachings of god or jesus the prophet for that matter. So called Christians that eat pork, don't fast, don't teach one god, and don't seek & speak the truth are not true Christians.

So it would be ignorant and hypocritical to bash Islam and pretend that Christianity is some holy religion.
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
5,982
Daps
132,705
Not really.

Do you think it wise to walk up to someone whom you deem dangerous and provoke them intentionally? If not, why not?

Did I say it was?
Your posts here about muslims are another example. I'm sure that if you were dealing with a muslim face to face you would express your problems with Islam in a much more respectful manner...probably because you understand that if you came at him and called the Prophet all kinds of names and defiled the Qur'an in front of him it would end in some kind of verbal and/or physical altercation.

It was a horrible analogy because nobody is walking up to any Muslims and shytting on their religion, making them feel subject to hostility and a potential physical threat here. It's a damn low budget independent movie made several thousand miles away virtually nobody outside of them even gives a fukk about or probably wouldn't have even known exists.

I'm not even sure what the point of the question was anyway because nobody said it was a good idea to make the film. The only part you got right was comparing these jihadist a$$holes to thugs and gangsters. That was on point.

If you're looking for a fight, you'll get one. It's that simple.

You're pre-justifying the premise of a fight, which is being offended by a media production. That's not how the world operates...the world outside of the middle east anyway.

Bruh...let's keep it all the way real....Islam is under attack all the time in the media. It's not like something like this happens once or twice every now and then and muslims riot every time. It's only when its clear that an effort is made with the SOLE PURPOSE of insulting Islam and everyone who believes in it that certain segments of a population 1 billion deep go nuts. Is it right? absolutely NOT....but I don't see the nobility in absolving the people who provoke these kinds of things of any and all responsibility. It takes two to tango.

Bruh...let's keep it all the way real, Muslims were killing people for offending Islam long before the post-9/11 American media or drone bombings, or any convenient scapegoat you can muster up. And Muslims kill people in Muslim nations for blasphemy or apostasy fairly routinely.

I don't know much about the film. I watched some of the trailer. I'm sure it cast Islam in a bad light and was meant to be inflammatory. Still, nobody deserves to be killed for it, especially people at an embassy who had nothing to do with it.

Why won't you address this inherent problem of violent, murderous reactions to every perceived insult to Islam among your "brothers" instead of just blaming the victims the entire time?

And you brining up lupe, lebron, and the nfl and saying my analogies are bad? :laugh: Show me where I said that muslims have the RIGHT to perform acts of violence.

There's nothing wrong with any of those analogies at all if you apply your reasoning to it. Many sports fan morons take their favorite team as seriously as Muslims do their faith. But I'm not going to look at the Dodgers fan who got killed at that away game and be like "Well he had it coming for talking shyt."

Are you even going to attempt to be consistent here? Your argument is essentially "Don't provoke and offend people because they might respond to violence." If you don't apply that logic universally, you're holding Muslims to a lower standard of acceptable behavior and essentially reinforcing the same generalizations and stereotypes you're railing against.


You seriously can't see that thats exactly what I AM SAYING?

In my earlier analogy, the dude who stuck me for my chain was clearly WRONG, but I was STUPID and WRONG as well for not listening to my mother who warned me about flossing it like an idiot. Why is this so hard to for you to understand? Gottdamn...

No I don't see what you're saying because you haven't articulated it until just now. Just now was the FIRST time in this entire thread you actually said that behavior is wrong, and I had to prod you to say it. You posted multiple times about how it was a bad idea to provoke these jihadist idiots, and said nothing at all condemning their acts.

Look at Alybaba, a guy who lives in Pakistan and who was raised Muslim (I think). Like any reasonable human being, he first the most obvious and important thing that needs to be said, that this was a horrible act that needs to be condemned and then talked about how people doing things like making films and drawing Muhammad cartoons or what have you are counterproductive and not wise.

You've done nothing but complain about what the filmmaker did to provoke this. That's a problem, and if you don't see how your response and similar responses from Muslims contribute to the negative view most non-Muslims have of your religion and its followers, I don't know what to tell you. If you want to say "fukk kaffirs I don't care what they think" okay, but you have to live in the world with us and I'll turn your logic right back around at you and say that's the real world.

Why can't you direct at least SOME anger at those who clearly PROVOKE these kind of riots instead of going on rants about how evil and disgusting muslims are? I'll tell you why, i'ts because you have an agenda.

I think the filmmaker was stupid for doing it, but am I going to direct any anger at him? fukk no. He has the right to produce stupid disrespectful trash. Just like Martin Scorsese had the right to make Last Temptation of Christ (and Christians didn't try to kill him and he's free to roam around in the open today, btw).

I'm not a moral relativist. I do believe in certain philosophical principles (what a novel concept) and one of those is the right to free expression regardless of who it offends. I saw you tell TheReal something like "fukk your liberal philosophy and morals, that doesn't matter here." Well what the fukk are you even talking for? What are you even civilized for? Why are you not a hunter-gatherer? Every decision and action you take is rooted in some moral principle, that's what our social contract is based on. If you adopt that stance, we might as well revert to anarchy.

If you throw philosophical principle in the bushes as it pertains to these Muslims, then others can do it as well. Then what? Some schools in middle eastern nations teach that Jews are subhuman Satan spawns that deserve death. What if some Jews decide to say that offends them and go around slaughtering random Muslims and firebombing mosques? Would you then say "Oh well those Jews have a violent inclination, they got what they had coming"?

What if some American idiots start murking random middle eastern dudes because of all the "death to America" and burning of American flags in middle eastern nations? I reckon your response would be a little different.

Your position cannot be taken seriously because you're not consistent.
I'll tell you why, i'ts because you have an agenda.
lol...yeah, I'm the one with the agenda here. Coming from the guy who spent all day bending over backwards trying to make rationalizations for random people getting murdered over anger at a low budget bullshyt movie instead of condemning the behavior.

If you notice, NOBODY who isn't a Muslim or former Muslim who grew up in the culture agrees with you every time one of these threads comes up. Mowgli doesn't count because he's trolling. Everyone but Muslims could be wrong. Or your view could be severely flawed. What's more likely?
 

wize fool

Rookie
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
361
Reputation
0
Daps
66
Reppin
NULL
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an 9:29

Another verse from At-Twabah, a chapter revealed during the time of war. This is why it is important to understand context and circumstances.

Qur'an 2:256 said:
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

I repeat, Let there be no compulsion in religion. Meaning you can't force anyone to believe anything.

Qur'an 2:62 said:
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Qur'an5:69 said:
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

The above 2 verses squash your previous misconception.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
Land Destroyer: US-Backed Terrorists Murder US' Own Ambassador in Libya

US-Backed Terrorists Murder US' Own Ambassador in Libya
Murdered US Ambassador exposes US "pro-democracy" foreign policy - same terrorists US backs in Syria are behind the murder of US Ambassador in Libya.
by Tony Cartalucci


Update: The picture below of John McCain in Benghazi, during the violent military subversion of Libya in 2011, includes the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right, wearing a blue tie. Stevens has now become a victim of the very terrorists he played a role in creating. The caption below has been edited to reflect this information.

Editor's Note: With Russia openly accusing the West of using Al Qaeda as their direct, militant proxies in Syria and beyond, this latest attempt to purposefully provoke and incite Muslims across the Arab World is an attempt by the West to reestablish the perception that the US and Israel are at war with sectarian extremists, not partnered with them. The film allegedly at the center of the violence, most likely came from the Neo-Con "Clarion Fund" or a project of similar origin.

September 12, 2012 - "I have met with these brave fighters, and they are not Al-Qaeda. To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation. We should help them do it." - Senator John McCain in Benghazi, Libya April 22, 2011.

Image: Senator John McCain (with the now deceased US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens on the right with blue tie) in the terrorist rat nest of Benghazi after marshaling cash, weapons, and political support for militants tied directly to Al Qaeda. McCain's insistence that the terrorists he helped arm and install into power were "not Al Qaeda" runs contra to the US Army's own reports which state that Benghazi's terror brigades officially merged with Al Qaeda in 2007. McCain's "Libyan patriots" have now killed US Ambassador Stevens with weapons most likely procured with cash and logistic networks set up by NATO last year, part of a supranational terror campaign that includes violently subverting Syria - a campaign McCain also supports.
....

McCain's "Libyan patriots" have now murdered US Ambassador John Christopher Stevens in the very city McCain spoke these words. An assault on the American consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, the epicenter of not only last year's violent subversion and destruction of sovereign Libya, but a decade's old epicenter of global terrorism, left Ambassador Stevens dead along with reportedly three others.

The violence, Western media claims, stems from an anti-Islamic film produced in the US. In reality, the coordinated nature of the attacks on both the US Embassy in Libya, as well as its embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, are most likely using the Neo-Conservative Clarion Fund-esque propaganda film as a false pretense for violence long-planned. The Clarion Fund regularly produces anti-Muslim propaganda, like "Iranium," specifically to maintain a strategy of tension using fear and anger to drive a wedge between Western civilization and Islam to promote perpetual global wars of profit.

NATO Knowingly Handed Libya to Al Qaeda

Indeed, the US Army's West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) noted that Benghazi and the neighboring city of Darnah served a disproportionately high role in supplying foreign fighters to wage terror against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan - foot soldiers brought in to fuel a destructive and divisive sectarian war that undermined a united Sunni-Shi'ia resistance to Western troops who had invaded.

Image: In Benghazi, in front of the very courthouse McCain and other representatives of the West's corporate-financier driven foreign policy voiced support for Libya's terror brigades, sectarian extremists took the streets waving the flag of Al Qaeda, even hoisting it atop the Benghazi courthouse itself. Despite a concerted effort by Western media houses to portray Libya as in the hands of progressive democratic secularists, the country was intentionally handed over to extremists to serve as a base of militancy to destabilize and destroy targets of Western interest around the word.
....

The men McCain was defending were Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) militants, terrorists linked directly with Al Qaeda according to West Point reports (.pdf), and listed to this day by the US State Department, the UK Home Office (.pdf), and the UN as a "foreign terrorist organization." McCain was not only rhetorically supporting listed terrorists, but calling for material support including weapons, funds, training, and air support in direct violation of USC § 2339A & 2339B, "providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations."

These same terrorists are now not only the defacto rulers of much of Libya, but are leading death squads in Syria and arming militants in Mali, an exponential expansion made possible by a non-partisan effort including Republicans and Democrats, as well as Bush-era Neo-Conservatives who concurrently lead both anti-Islam propaganda while leading calls to arm the most radical sectarian extremist groups, including groups directly affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Syria is Next

Not only has US policy been exposed as not "promoting democracy" but purposefully spreading destabilization, violence, and terrorism, but the exact same militants behind the death of the US' own ambassador are literally leading US efforts to visit the same violence, destabilization, and chaos upon Syria.

Reuters, in their article, "Libyan fighters join Syrian revolt," reported, that Mahdi al-Harati, "a powerful militia chief from Libya's western mountains," who is actually a militant of the US, British, and UN listed terrorist organization Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), "now leads a unit in Syria, made up mainly of Syrians but also including some foreign fighters, including 20 senior members of his own Libyan rebel unit." Reuters would go on to explain, "the Libyans aiding the Syrian rebels include specialists in communications, logistics, humanitarian issues and heavy weapons," and that they "operate training bases, teaching fitness and battlefield tactics."

Image: Libyan Mahdi al-Harati of the US State Department, United Nations, and the UK Home Office (page 5, .pdf)-listed terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), addressing fellow terrorists in Syria. Harati is now commanding a Libyan brigade operating inside of Syria attempting to destroy the Syrian government and subjugate the Syrian population. Traditionally, this is known as "foreign invasion."
....

Reuters concedes that the ongoing battle has nothing to do with democracy, but instead is purely a sectarian campaign aimed at "pushing out" Syria's minorities, perceived to be "oppressing" "Sunni Muslims."

Reuters' propaganda piece is rounded off with a Libyan terrorist allegedly threatening that "the militancy would spread across the region as long as the West does not do more to hasten the downfall of Assad," a talking point plucked straight from the halls of America's corporate-financier funded think-tanks. In fact, just such a think-tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently published a statement signed by Bush-era Neo-Conservatives stating:

"America’s national security interests are intertwined with the fate of the Syrian people and the wider region. Indeed, Syria’s escalating conflict now threatens to directly affect the country’s neighbors, including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Israel, and could provide an opening for terrorist groups like al Qaeda to exploit."

Along with "War on Terror" proponent John McCain, Al Qaeda's LIFG and America's Neo-Con establishment are now operating in tandem, as well as in direct contradiction to a decade of "War on Terror" propaganda. It should be remembered that those who signed this statement, including Elliott Abrams, Max Boot, Ellen Bork, William Kristol, Paul Bremer, Paula Dobriansk, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Clifford D. May, Stephen Rademaker, Michael Weiss, Radwan Ziadeh, were among the very engineers of the fraudulent "War on Terror" that McCain himself is such a fervent supporter of. Radwan Ziadeh, last on the list, is in fact a "Syrian National Council" member - one of several proxies the US State Department is hoping to slip into power in Syria.

Russia, China, Iran, and Others Oppose Terrorism in Syria for a Reason

With Libya's "democratic progress" exposed as only tenuously covering up NATO's creation of a nation-wide safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists to subsequently be deployed against the West's political enemies across he Arab World and beyond, it will be even more difficult, if not impossible to continue promoting this same "change" in Syria. Libya, through direct action of NATO, has been overrun by terrorists. Syria's government is desperately trying to prevent its people from being likewise overrun.

And even as the US buries its own ambassador, killed by terror brigades it itself armed and thrust into power through covert and direct military intervention, in a nation now wrecked by sectarian and tribal infighting, it insists on replicating its "success" in Syria.

Russia, China, Iran, and a growing number of nations have been opposing this campaign of supranational terrorism - with the death of Ambassador Stevens laying bare the true nature of America's proxy "freedom fighters," the list of global opposition will only grow, leaving only the most shameless and deeply invested to defend America's invasive and bloody foreign policy.
 

Hip-Hop-Bulls

All Star
Joined
Aug 8, 2012
Messages
3,356
Reputation
325
Daps
5,811
I live in America bruh. DC area to be exact


My religion is irrelevant since I will not blow up someone because of a movie

Ok, you live in America. As do I. Now do I really need to bring up and compare murder/rape numbers of America to these "Middle East" Islamic countries? :heh:

Just because you won't blow up someone doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
38,846
Reputation
1,477
Daps
37,268
Reppin
NULL
I live in America bruh. DC area to be exact


My religion is irrelevant since I will not blow up someone because of a movie

Cop out. Point is Muslims had no right to do this but why did this video exist at all. Cacs being Cacs. If these fools made an anti black video would you be saying this?
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,701
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,583
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
"CONQUESTS" ARE NOT A MATTER OF SELF-DEFENSE, BROTHER! MUHAMMAD LED MUSLIM ARMIES ON THE OFFENSIVE TO CAPTURE MORE TERRITORY, DUDE! THIS IS A HISTORICAL FACT, NOT AN INTERPRETATION, BROTHER!

Not interjecting on either side, but what about the Allied "Conquest" of Germany? The Muslim view is that these wars were started and pursued by these various people and tribes, and then finished by the ever increasing Muslim Armies.


So essentially it's like Pearl Harbor turning into invading the Pacific Islands.


Specific example : The Sassanid Persians had a number of client states and dukedoms that they used to attack the Muslims. The Muslims we're well aware of this, and escalated this to a full invasion of Persia. Whether you agree with that is up to you, but there is historical precedent for action like that. Not defending, just giving the facts :clap:
 
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reputation
0
Daps
421
Reppin
NULL
Christians are no more holy than muslims, that's for sure. When muslims took control over egypt, they were in joy they were no longer in control by the Christians. Muslims allowed the people to practice other religions, while Christians killed theirs. When the muslims controlled europe for 700 years, they brought them OUT of the dark ages, w/o them the world as we know it would be totally different. Muslims have strict laws they follow enabling them a decent amount of freedom that christians don't have since they don't follow the teachings of god or jesus the prophet for that matter. So called Christians that eat pork, don't fast, don't teach one god, and don't seek & speak the truth are not true Christians.

So it would be ignorant and hypocritical to bash Islam and pretend that Christianity is some holy religion.

Then why today are Christians persecuted in Muslim majority countries all over the world? Where is the tolerance? From Africa, to the middle east, to Asia, Muslim majorities kill Christians.

There are Christian sects that abide by these principles friend. Those sects that truly broke from Roman traditions (some protestants) and influence follow the old testament as well as the new.

We really got off topic in this thread. Someone should create a Christian/Islam thread.
 

Berniewood Hogan

IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
17,983
Reputation
6,870
Daps
88,325
Reppin
nWg
Not interjecting on either side, but what about the Allied "Conquest" of Germany?

HISTORIANS TEND TO AGREE THAT THE CAPTURE OF WESTERN EUROPEAN TERRITORY BY THE ALLIES WAS MORE ABOUT POWER AND INFLUENCE THAN FREEING GERMANS FROM FASCISM, BROTHER! NATION STATES ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO MAKE A LANDGRAB!
 

wize fool

Rookie
Joined
Sep 11, 2012
Messages
361
Reputation
0
Daps
66
Reppin
NULL
"CONQUESTS" ARE NOT A MATTER OF SELF-DEFENSE, BROTHER! MUHAMMAD LED MUSLIM ARMIES ON THE OFFENSIVE TO CAPTURE MORE TERRITORY, DUDE! THIS IS A HISTORICAL FACT, NOT AN INTERPRETATION, BROTHER!

Muhammad conquered territories under what is known as the "Sword of Truth". This is a metaphor. The Sword of Truth was the message of Islam. Muhammad marched on Mecca 10,000 strong but they took the city with no bloodshed. Muhammad's military career was based on self defense.

Islam was spread, but not by the sword in the way you're thinking. I am afraid you have been misinformed.
 
Top