Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[garbon]

The people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.

Maybe we could get them to see Dr. Phil!

[KRonn]

The people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.

Maybe we could get them to see Dr. Phil!

Heh. 

[CountDeMoney]

I saw some news reports on TV saying that the guy who put that video out is an Egyptian Coptic Christian. Anyone see that reported? Maybe it's in this thread already somewhere.

Yeah, that's not news anymore.

The people doing this have serious issues on their part that they need to look at, rather than those they hate on.

Unless it's teachers, of course.

[KRonn]

Teachers are ok, it's their unions. Though when teachers so blindly support their unions as in Chicago then the teacher reps suffer too.

[Phillip V]

Teacher unions are in cahoots with the prison-industrial complex. Kids fail. Kids go to jail.

[KRonn]

Heh, we think the Muslim world is riled up now? Wait until later this year and the movie about the killing of bin Laden comes out.

[MadImmortalMan]

Teachers are ok, it's their unions. Though when teachers so blindly support their unions as in Chicago then the teacher reps suffer too.

A lot of times, the administration is so shitty that the teachers need their unions to defend themselves against their superiors' stupidity. This crap is top-down. There is no trust anywhere.

[Viking]

Heh, we think the Muslim world is riled up now? Wait until later this year and the movie about the killing of bin Laden comes out.

That will not piss them off as much.

[Tamas]

If I try to be sympathetic to these animals (and I mean the "protesters" themselves, no the muslim world in general), I must conclude that movies like these must be terribly frustrating for them indeed.

Their entire existence is made worse by a lot of arbitary rules. No booze, no oogling of women on the street, no fun.
The basis for these strict life-worsening rules, The Reason Why This Worth It At The End is that Mohammed knew his shit, and he is the überest mofo ever to have lived, and his words and person are untouchble.

When somebody makes a shittie anti-Mohammed production like this one, and is not smitten by the mighty smiter, proves one fucking painful thing:
their lives are mandatory fucked up in total and utter vain.

[Solmyr]

Heh, we think the Muslim world is riled up now? Wait until later this year and the movie about the killing of bin Laden comes out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2141875/

[garbon]

This is interesting:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html

[Ed Anger]

Authorities in Cairo have ordered the arrest of seven US-based Egyptian Coptic Christians for their alleged involvement in an anti-Islam video.

The crude production posted on YouTube has sparked violent protests and riots across the Muslim world for its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

It is unclear who made the film, but it has been linked to an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in the United States.

An arrest warrant has also been issued for US Christian pastor Terry Jones.

One woman and seven men, including Mr Jones, are accused of "insulting the Islamic religion, insulting the Prophet and inciting sectarian strife", according to the prosecutor's office.

It said international police agency Interpol would be notified of the warrants. A request will also be filed with US judicial authorities.

lolz

[Tonitrus]

I am ever slowly moving towards the "Nuke Islam" position.

[CountDeMoney]

I am ever slowly moving towards the "Nuke Islam" position.

I've been there since 1979.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF20120918_00301001

english translation with google translate, but I think it should be comprehensible

It's not about respect for religion
The Holy determines what sacrilege
Wednesday, September 19, 2012, 3:00
Author: Saligram Narayanrao Reageer35 Like 92

Entire stacks flags have been burned before, for that one anti-Islam film. Muslims should be consistent, find SALIGRAM NARAYANRAO BALAGANGADHARA: if they do not want them to be offended, they should also not offend other religions.

The film Innocence or Muslims, the past week cities across the world put on stilts, and threatens to do that yet. "We never insult other prophets," says the tenor of several Muslims, "so why can not we demand that Muhammad get respect? We respect the others, why they insult us? " Others suggested that the anger came from a requirement of "freedom": the right of a community to be free from heavy insults against her identity and values.

As with the Muhammad cartoons from a few years ago the same cliché pops up in the debates, there should be more respect for the other. Everyone thinks that he has that respect for the other. But despite all that self-esteem is declared the world does not peaceful to become. What is it really going on?

For Muslims, the religious question of ridiculing the Prophet. But to whom is the prophet Muhammad? Yet only those who believe in Islam? This clause applies to all religious symbols. Something is always a symbol for a particular person, which is a symbol for one is not for another. Take a heathen like me: for me symbolizes neither the cross nor the prophet Mohammed anything. One is one thing and the other is a man. The Sikhs in India, the turban is regarded as their religious symbol, but that's neither for me nor for the Protestant case.

Requirement to repentance

Something is only a religious symbol within the boundaries of a particular religion. Outside has the same symbolic value anymore. What does it mean to non-Muslims to demand that they respect Muhammad? Is it a requirement to recognize him as a religious symbol or a prophet? In that case it comes down to a requirement to provide visibility to convert to Islam. Without this step, Muhammad never a religious symbol or prophet for me and any other non-Muslim. What is the significance of the complaint that the film mocking the prophet "and that it should not do?

Muslims argue that the Prophet Muhammad depiction sacrilege, because the prophet pictures of themselves and Allah has forbidden. The answer is simple: the words of the prophet are only valid for those who accept him as a prophet. For non-Muslims, this rule no power.

But the question is: are we doing something immoral by their sense of sacrilege not to 'respect'? To answer, we must expand our perspective. Until today criticize some Protestants, Catholics openly by the pope "the antichrist" to call the Catholic church as "the church of the devil" to portray, and the believers as "devil worshipers" to condemn. Europe experienced decades of wars about. Until today remain central tenets of Protestantism sacrilege for Catholics, just as the existence of Catholicism itself sacrilege continues for many Protestants. What should we do, if one says that one group may not do what the other sees as sacrilege?

When I look Indian with even more amazement to the requirement of the protesting Muslims. For centuries it belongs to the essence of Islam to the Indian traditions (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism) describe as idolatry and false demonic religion. According to Islam, Hindus worship Satan and his companions: their elephant god Ganesha, the adulterous Krishna or Shiva phallic. That image is still relevant. Are such statements about the gods of India no sacrilege? Can we Muslims demand that their basic doctrines of idolatry, God and Satan deny? If Islam do that, she would raise her own existence as a religion. In other words, from a pagan perspective, the existence of a religion such as Islam (or Christianity) in itself 'sacrilege'. The core of these religions transforms millions of people in Asia to idol worshipers and worshipers of the devil.

Muslims must be consistent: if they do not want that one commits sacrilege against their religion, then they do not do that to other religions and traditions far.

Superior to all

If they are not willing to accept this conclusion, then the requirement of the protesting Muslims in fact is this: the world must treat them as an exceptional religious community, not equal to and superior to all. Of course, they believe that this is the case. That is why it is not acceptable for belief that the rest of the world. The whole debate is neither about 'respect for other religions', nor 'freedom of expression'. It's about a religious group, calling themselves eight superior to all others, demands that the whole world the truth of this belief would endorse. Who is willing to do that? I certainly do not.

Who? Director of the India Platform professor and comparative cultural studies, UGent.

What? Muslims who protest against the anti-Islam film, in fact demands that the world treats them as exceptional community.

Why? Expressions that are critical to their religion, they can not find, but Islam itself is the other religious experiences is sacrilege.

time for the muslims to either learn and accept this or go extinct