Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

theguardian.com

481–489 of 489 posts

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I had no other way to point out that you turned out to be embarrassingly wrong.

Okay but I'm somewhat surprised how much this conversation meant to you, that you've chosen to resurrect it a month later in a completely unrelated thread. Anyway, his performance in The Imitation Game is just personal taste, it's not a matter of right and wrong, we just happen to hold different opinions - nothing to gloat about!

Yeah, I laughed out loud pretty hard at the time saying "This guy is a clueless idiot". I wondered if we actually saw the same movie. Anyway, it's a waste of time to debate opinions. However, a Best Actor and Best Picture nomination are hard to argue with.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but I'm somewhat surprised how much this conversation meant to you, that you've chosen to resurrect it a month later in a completely unrelated thread. Anyway, his performance in The Imitation Game is just personal taste, it's not a matter of right and wrong, we just happen to hold different opinions - nothing to gloat about!

Yeah, I laughed out loud pretty hard at the time saying "This guy is a clueless idiot". I wondered if we actually saw the same movie. Anyway, it's a waste of time to debate opinions. However, a Best Actor and Best Picture nomination are hard to argue with.

You're an odd one, for sure.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I laughed out loud pretty hard at the time saying "This guy is a clueless idiot". I wondered if we actually saw the same movie. Anyway, it's a waste of time to debate opinions. However, a Best Actor and Best Picture nomination are hard to argue with.

You're an odd one, for sure.

If only everyone would take the time. :-)

http://xkcd.com/386/

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're an odd one, for sure.

If only everyone would take the time. :-) http://xkcd.com/386/

I found this for you: http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/causeeffectfactopinion...

Hope it helps!

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only everyone would take the time. :-) http://xkcd.com/386/

I found this for you: http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/causeeffectfactopinion... Hope it helps!

You were the one who felt the need to bore us with your opinion. I'm just taking the time to show you how off the mark you were.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this for you: http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/causeeffectfactopinion... Hope it helps!

You were the one who felt the need to bore us with your opinion. I'm just taking the time to show you how off the mark you were.

It amuses me that my boring opinion means so much to you, that you decided to barge in on a completely different topic weeks later, and rub your own boring opinion in.

I appreciate this unexpected attention, but it is kind of weird of you, and a bit stalkerish.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were the one who felt the need to bore us with your opinion. I'm just taking the time to show you how off the mark you were.

It amuses me that my boring opinion means so much to you, that you decided to barge in on a completely different topic weeks later, and rub your own boring opinion in. I appreciate this unexpected attention, but it is kind of weird of you, and a bit stalkerish.

I think I've already explained myself. Can I be done now?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amuses me that my boring opinion means so much to you, that you decided to barge in on a completely different topic weeks later, and rub your own boring opinion in. I appreciate this unexpected attention, but it is kind of weird of you, and a bit stalkerish.

I think I've already explained myself. Can I be done now?

Of course, just stop replying.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#489
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Erm... thats not what I'm talking about. When Irish Catholics Gasoline Bomb British cities, people don't use the actions of the violent IRA as a denunciation of Christianity as a whole. Firstly I would argue that other people in this thread doing just that. Well usually not the actions of the IRA, though the terrorist attacks against abortion clinics are mentioned (they were against buildings, of course, not people…

>>> This is also the story you keep hearing about terrorist recruiters. There's a reason terrorist recruitment amongst muslims works much better than among, say, christians or hindus or buddhists or ..., and that reason is differences in the ideology. You're so blinded by bigotry I bet you can't even tell the difference from an extremist Wahhabist Muslim and my Shiite next-door neighbor. And you can't even admit to m…

You are attempting to conflate individuals versus ideology. Mustlims are individuals. Islam is an ideology.

Islam is evil. No question.

> Denouncing all of Islam is ridiculously ignorant. Denouncing all of Christianity is also ignorant (because the many sects of Christianity basically have nothing to do with each other outside of an event that happened 2015 years ago). You are defending bigotry and ignorance.

And what do all Christians have in common ? Well, easy : Jesus. That's what you're referring to.

What do all muslims have in common : "the prophet". This prophet :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Mecca

Of note : "Ten people were ordered to be killed:[14] Ikrimah ibn Abi-Jahl, Abdullah ibn Saad ibn Abi Sarh, Habbar bin Aswad, Miqyas Subabah Laythi, Huwairath bin Nuqayd, Abdullah Hilal and four women who had been guilty of murder or criticising Mohammed or had sparked off the war and disrupted the peace."

(note also the fact that the prophet violated the terms of the peace treaty he signed beforehand, real peace of work this prophet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids

...

The list goes on and all in all "the prophet" directly ordered the deaths of at least 1200 people, some sources say 18000 is closer to the real figure.

And let's just not mention that the guy did this to a 6 year old (don't worry, some muslim sources claim she was 8) (plenty of muslim countries realize that this is not moral, but always muslim clerics are fighting the state on this) :

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... (search for "fondle", and yes, that's not a mistranslation. For a modern view google "thighing" for how this is translated into modern law and ... into modern ways to do something to female toddlers (which is both legal and done in Saudi Arabia))

There is no gray area here. There is also no sane argument that "some" islamic sects don't include this. Every moral human being would consider islam's central figure a complete abomination. The rest (the large majority) is either ignorant or (some of them) malevolent.

So why is islam evil ? Simple. If you read the primary sources, there is no escaping the conclusion that the terrorirsts are right. If you consider massacring people for insults/criticism wrong, then the prophet is a monster, because he did that.

Such a viewpoint is completely incompatible with anything remotely related to islam, for obvious reasons (for over a millenia, muslims were referred to as mohammedans, because "muslim" means believer, not of any specific religion, and was used to refer to christians)

I fear to think about just how desperate you must be when holding up Saudi Arabia as an example of a "US ally", presumably to indicate the state itself is not extremist ...

Now look here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knjwOWJoY-k&bpctr=1421571560

Heh ... I wonder why anyone would consider that extremist ?

> The majority of Terrorist attacks within the US is... surprise... not Muslim related. This is a historical fact.

And any historical map of the world will tell you exactly why that is. Incidentally, by death toll, islam is by far the largest cause of terrorism. By death toll per decade it's 2 orders of magnitude worse than all other sources combined.

Furthermore there are huge regions where that is not true at all. South Eastern Europe, North and Central Africa, India, and parts of China. Additionally, the largest massacre ever (the invasion of India by the Mughals) was also committed by islam's followers. And it's not like that's islam's only mention in the top-10 massacres by death toll.

Post reply on HN