As many times as you state it. It is foolish and unreasonable to exempt Islam from dislike and criticism.
See my bold comments above.
Nice to see you've given up on your last point.
And I also find it HILARIOUS how you collectivise 'dislike' and 'criticism' when my original point clearly only refers to 'hatred'. Get lost buddy, you've been exposed trying to twist my words and I have no reason to take you seriously.
Funny how not a single one of your posts explains things. Full of points, but you can't do what year 8 students can, which is the E in PEE paragraphs. Learn to explain your points, start off by explaining why these values are non-Islamic, such as Ramadan.
Funny how not a single one of your posts explains things. Full of points, but you can't do what year 8 students can, which is the E in PEE paragraphs. Learn to explain your points, start off by explaining why these values are non-Islamic, such as Ramadan.
LOL it's because I'm an adult and really don't know how to deal with someone who claims family values originated from islam
Usually I'd just give you a sweet and a pat on the head and push you back towards your mother with a knowing look
This person obviously thinks that women should dress in a certain way. Therefore, he is sexist. I understand that 300 people being killed and a further 200 being injured being big for you, but guess what! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN WARS!!!!!
meanwhile 300 Muslims die in Baghdad because of terrorism, but you're getting all teary about something as small as this? certainly just because it fits your islamphobic (note I say islamphobic as fear of Islam, not islamophobia) agenda.
The OP is merely conveying information about the attack; no need to get so defensive. As a fellow Muslim, I definitely don't believe this is something small. Every life matters and if those four are something so irrelevant to you then I'm ashamed of you.
I accept that Islam is unfair to women, but my argument is about terrorism, not some inequality within Islamic communities. Criticism of Islam makes Muslims feel like they are hated by the west, it makes them segregate themselves and it therefore increases the chances of them becoming radicalised. Say "I'm sorry but" or "I can't believe" all you want, but that is not reinforcing anything.
Comparing gays to Islam is nonsensical. Homosexuality is not an ideology, its not a movement under which a massive group of people unite and share beliefs, it is starting to emerge as a community nowadays but in terms of your argument you are clearly talking about the past and persecution in recent history. Attacking someone's sexuality is not the same as attacking someone's and their entire family's beliefs and their government and in some cases, the only form of government that they know to be true. This ties into my democracy argument before, if someone attacks democracy, you go rabid and call them fascist/communist and start attacking them back - when in reality, democracy has left many values behind. The same applies with Islam, these people see Islam as their perfect form of government, so criticising it is equivalent to some foreigner criticising democracy. But the point is, homosexuality is not a political ideology under which many people unite, nor has it got history of prophets, empires and wars - its newly emerging as a community, therefore its pretty dumb to ponder why gays haven't retaliated in mass violence.
And beyond this yet, the media is going to need some substantial proof to suggest that the motivation was because of homphobia. We could easily have had many homosexual serial killers or attackers in the last few years, but the negatively predisposed and offensive media tends to shove any non-Muslim / non-black killing as under mental illness based on some vague psychiatric reports from decades beforehand. When it comes to Arabs committing atrocities, the media immediately ignites in pinpointing Islam as the factor to blame. Homophobia is a less robust motive to write about, and even further still, homosexuality has been developing more thoroughly in recent years in the west. The west is a pretty safe place nowadays (compared to before) for this sort of thing, as it is tolerated. You don't have the desperate conditions, corrupt regimes and instability present in the Middle East - which catalyses this sort of violence. Because quite obviously more violence around you tends to make you desensitised to violence and therefore in some cases, more willing to commit violence.
Hi, me again. Sorry I've missed some of the action today, caught myself up to speed and have to say I am DISGUSTED by your response and what it seems to imply.
Islam is a choice whereas homosexuality is not. Therefore criticising homosexuality, like race, hair colour, weight, scars, physical appearance, etc., is worse than criticising Islam.
Homosexuals have long been persecuted just as Muslims have and Jews and all other kinds of people... But (and I believe I've made this point before) gay people don't have a book telling them to kill straight people. It's funny isn't it? Almost as if a lack of justification and acceptance for terrorism mostly stops terrorism? Who would've thought.
So really y'all can stop claiming Islamophobia creates terrorists when really the story is much more complex than that.
And I also find it HILARIOUS how you collectivise 'dislike' and 'criticism' when my original point clearly only refers to 'hatred'. Get lost buddy, you've been exposed trying to twist my words and I have no reason to take you seriously.
I've given up on nothing. Just answer the questions in post 251.
you posted this and drew out the arab name as the most important point, we both know you posted this only because of the arab name.
So "Mohammad" (and its variants) is an Arab name, is it? It may have originated in Arabia, but it certainly isn't exclusively Arab now. Muhammad A. - an Arab? Mohammad H. - an Arab? J. Mohammad - An Arab? No on all counts. One is American, one is Indonesian and one is Welsh.
At best, you could accuse the OP (or anyone else with a working brain) of assuming that the attacker was Muslim. Which is the case.
Yet the OP, highlights the Arab name as the most important detail - thereby implicitly linking him to Islamic terrorism with no actual evidence other than a racial assumption.
Muslim name, not Arab name. Thereby linking him to a particular ideology. The other thing linking him to that ideology is his apparent motive. Taking these two things, together with the callous brutality of the attack and recent events in France, it is clearly an event that is both newsworthy and not entirely complicated or mysterious in its composition. Well, to those with fully functioning critical faculties, anyway.
This therefore means that you posted it solely because you want to incriminate Islam by linking this incident to Muslims. There is an equally high change that this person is mentally ill, just like the Munich knife attacker from months back when the police found no links to terrorism.
THis is like the NRA's argument. "Islam doesn't kill people, crazy people kill people". But just like guns, a violent and misogynistic ideology acts as a facilitator for the violent tendancies of the crazy person, in this instance who stabs women for dressing immodestly.
Nope, this guy has a posting history of criticising Islam and exclusively posting news reports where Islamic terrorism is involved. Not pure speculation.
So just because similar things have happened in the past, you assume - without any real evidence - that this instance must be the same.
Remind me again what you have spent the last 4 pages crying about?