Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The last few days have seen a resurgence of the idea that, because Muslims are violent, we shouldn't offend them.
Some are arguing that, if the intent of speech is to offend, it shouldn't be a0llowed.
There are others that argue that, if you know someone will react negatively to something, you are responsible for their actions.
I firmly believe that the intent of, and the reaction to, speech is irrelevant.
Canada, like most countries, disagrees with me. They actually drug in the guy that published the Mohammad cartoons to ask him about his intent. I think his response when asked what his intent was should be taught to every child in the world.
Why is that a relevant question? We published what we published. The words and pictures speak for themselves. So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred and cause offense, are you saying thats an acceptable answer? My answer to your question is as follows. We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think. Ive probably given 200 interviews to people other than the state where Id give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent, but the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is that its my bloody right to do so. My answer to these two fascists, the one trained in Saudi Arabia and the other one piling on, is that I reserve the right to publish those cartoons for exactly what they complain about. I reserve the right to publish those cartoons to do every offensive thing that they claim is in my heart.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g]What was your intent? - YouTube[/ame]
Sharia law makes offending the prophet illegal, some people are saying that we, even though we live in non Muslim countries, should voluntarily follow Sharia law. We do not have Sharia law for a reason. We are faced with a choice right now, extremists have come up to us, stuck a gun in our face, and demanded that we take them someplace. Every security and safety expert has the exact same advice for people who find themselves in that situation, refuse to cooperate. You are better off having the confrontation at the primary crime scene than allowing them to take you to a secondary crime scene where they can kill you without attracting attention.
If we get into the car of Sharia law now, we are under there control, and they will be able to take us wherever they want. We will move from the primary crime scene where we have a chance to the secondary crime scene. We have no idea where that will be, but we know we will have already lost control of the situation.
We need to draw the line now, not later.
Ahhh yes. It is up to the laws in those countries to decide. Like it is up to the laws in this country to decide and our laws say there is a right to make those films. There is a right to insult islam.
Ahhh yes. It is up to the laws in those countries to decide. Like it is up to the laws in this country to decide and our laws say there is a right to make those films. There is a right to insult islam.
But don't travel to an islamic state after doing that. Your laws are not going to protect you over there.
What am I talking about, your laws don't protect you in your country either. FBI is gonna get you.
The last few days have seen a resurgence of the idea that, because Muslims are violent, we shouldn't offend them.
Some are arguing that, if the intent of speech is to offend, it shouldn't be a0llowed.
There are others that argue that, if you know someone will react negatively to something, you are responsible for their actions.
I firmly believe that the intent of, and the reaction to, speech is irrelevant.
Canada, like most countries, disagrees with me. They actually drug in the guy that published the Mohammad cartoons to ask him about his intent. I think his response when asked what his intent was should be taught to every child in the world.
Why is that a relevant question? We published what we published. The words and pictures speak for themselves. So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred and cause offense, are you saying thats an acceptable answer? My answer to your question is as follows. We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think. Ive probably given 200 interviews to people other than the state where Id give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent, but the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is that its my bloody right to do so. My answer to these two fascists, the one trained in Saudi Arabia and the other one piling on, is that I reserve the right to publish those cartoons for exactly what they complain about. I reserve the right to publish those cartoons to do every offensive thing that they claim is in my heart.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iMNM1tef7g]What was your intent? - YouTube[/ame]
Sharia law makes offending the prophet illegal, some people are saying that we, even though we live in non Muslim countries, should voluntarily follow Sharia law. We do not have Sharia law for a reason. We are faced with a choice right now, extremists have come up to us, stuck a gun in our face, and demanded that we take them someplace. Every security and safety expert has the exact same advice for people who find themselves in that situation, refuse to cooperate. You are better off having the confrontation at the primary crime scene than allowing them to take you to a secondary crime scene where they can kill you without attracting attention.
If we get into the car of Sharia law now, we are under there control, and they will be able to take us wherever they want. We will move from the primary crime scene where we have a chance to the secondary crime scene. We have no idea where that will be, but we know we will have already lost control of the situation.
We need to draw the line now, not later.
Ahhh yes. It is up to the laws in those countries to decide. Like it is up to the laws in this country to decide and our laws say there is a right to make those films. There is a right to insult islam.
But don't travel to an islamic state after doing that. Your laws are not going to protect you over there.
What am I talking about, your laws don't protect you in your country either. FBI is gonna get you.
Syrren please explain how America is gonna be taken over by Sharia law?
Syrren please explain how America is gonna be taken over by Sharia law?
Same way they are doing it every where else.... demanding it..and getting it.
I am not saying they are going to take over...i am saying they are making in roads ....and that is a BAD thing.
Syrren please explain how America is gonna be taken over by Sharia law?
Same way they are doing it every where else.... demanding it..and getting it.
I am not saying they are going to take over...i am saying they are making in roads ....and that is a BAD thing.
what inroads?
the only religious inroads i see in this country are from christians attempting to implement christian laws.
First, I did not say Muslims are violent, I am arguing that some people think that, because Muslims are violent, we should comply with their demand to not insult the prophet. Take your issues up with the people who think that, personally I think we should go out of our way to insult all of them, especially the violent ones.
So, you've repeated your assertion that Muslims are violent.
Start with me. I'm Muslim and advocate peace and understanding.
Come on, get past the semantics on the issue. His statement was crystal clear: person A believes that Muslims are violent (truth of the belief does not matter) and therefore believes that we should not insult the prophet.
Personally, I think we could better state it this way anyway: some people believe that we should not insult the prophet because of the violent actions of a few Muslims across the globe. See the recent attacks on the embassies and the death of the ambassador.
Personally, I agree with the sentiment that such a notion is silly. Violence should not beget complacency and outright submission of our basic rights. In this case, namely speech and press. It is a slap in the face to capitulate to violent (and worthless) subsection of people by giving up the basic tenants that we believe in.
The issue is not how much money Wilders makes, but whether he has a right to make anti islamic movies.
He lies about everything
Geerts Widlers doesn't give a damn about Islam or Muslims. He just lies to make money off morons who believe him.
Please prove that Muslims are violent.
Not a few Muslims, many Muslims, or the extremist Muslims.
You said, "Muslims" so prove ALL Muslims are violent or admit you lied.
First, I did not say Muslims are violent, I am arguing that some people think that, because Muslims are violent, we should comply with their demand to not insult the prophet. Take your issues up with the people who think that, personally I think we should go out of our way to insult all of them, especially the violent ones.
So, you've repeated your assertion that Muslims are violent.
Start with me. I'm Muslim and advocate peace and understanding.
Katz it's all in your head. There is no war between the religons. I seriously doubt Alpine was a Muslim. If he was and became an atheist then good for him. But he obviously has an agenda farther than that. He told me he had many Muslim friends, yet he's trying to get people to go at war with Muslims. What a shadowy guy....
Katz it's all in your head. There is no war between the religons. I seriously doubt Alpine was a Muslim. If he was and became an atheist then good for him. But he obviously has an agenda farther than that. He told me he had many Muslim friends, yet he's trying to get people to go at war with Muslims. What a shadowy guy....
There's no war HERE, at least not yet, but there is in many parts of the world. I know a lot of muslims. I work for a muslim company. It's not that some of my friends are muslim. ALL of my friends and associates are muslim. Good people. They are all reformists. To the last one, they know that the ideology if islam has to be destroyed and it will likely take a war to do it.
I asked one of my associates, a Shia, if he practices Ashura. He said that he does not, he has a dog, he drinks, he lives with a woman not his wife. He will be one of the first to go under strict islamic law. Yes there is an agenda, yes it goes further than whatever you might imagine. To say that muslims who would reform islam are disappointed is an understatement. Western nations support the most radical aspects of islam. That's not disappointing, it's horrifying.
You never grew up with religon so religon must sound horrifying to you. In the Middle East everyone grew up with religon and its normal. I've been there many times.
You are confusing an act with acceptance of that act and the reasons behind it. An honor killing is not punishable under islamic law. You are trying to create a concept that says All is the same as None. If all muslims don't bash their parents' head in, that means that none of them do.
Look at it this way. The vast majority of German people didn't want war. They were just as peaceful as the people in London hiding from Hitler's blitz. If given the individual choice, most Germans would have rather gone to work and then home to a nice dinner with their families. It did not stop us from bombing Dresden to rubble. There is no such thing as All and None being the same thing. If ALL musims aren't murderous bastards, it means NONE of them are. And the muslims don't even believe that.
I come from Gaza and Hamas is an Islamic government. Anyone who kills their relative or kids gets jail for life and most likely death penalty. And I'm not confusing anything I know more than you on Islam. You get it off the Internet I get and see things off experience. I've been to Muslim countries
I repped you for this. Truest words ever spoken.
Fitna is a word used to describe people who start civil war. Starting problems between people.
You made up your own defintion of Fitna
Fitna is causing problems between people.
You made up your own defintion of Fitna
Fitna is causing problems between people.
More precisely, it means attempting to create a chaotic situation that test's one faith. That means that I, by pointing out that Mohammad was a liar, am engaged in fitna.
Laws should be put in place all over the world making defaming the Prophet of Islam a punishable crime.
