But Islam does NOT mean killing non-believers. If they are peaceful you are not allowed to be violent and this is a quote from the Koran

Well, it seems we simply can't. If you read about Tsarnaev brothers you'd notice that at least one of them was quite well integrated and neither of them, or anyone from their family, was leading a destitute life. Political asylum can offer lots of privileges, but whatever, it doesn't matter how they got to the USA. Then something changed. They weren't orphans, neither living on the edge of society.
If avoiding such tragedies to happen means giving up freedoms that were conquered in such a long time, I think we deserve everything that might follow after this. I don't want to live in a totalitarian society, either based on a religious ideology or on other type of ideology. It's a matter that should concern all of us, regardless of our religion or other things.
The Dutch film-maker killed in 2004 payed a high price for his freedom. The other ones knew what could happen, but it didn't stop them. That should mean something and I'm really sad to see people trying to somehow find them at fault.

I think that humans always have -- and quite likely always will -- (mis)interpret their religions according to their own nature, whether that be violent or non-violent. This is why, for example, you have plenty of Islamic scholars who maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and that jihadists are not "true Muslims" and why some Muslims do use their religion to try to justify violence. Plenty of Christians have done that as well, throughout the course of human history. The Bible is also certainly not so "forgiving."

Was it really that long ago that some cultures here in the West were doing things such as:

• Torturing and burning women alive, irrationally accusing them of being "witches"
• Accusing, practically en masse, someone of heresy for having written a book about evolution
• Not allowing women to vote
• Justifying the enslavement of an entire race of human beings

Yes, thankfully, we seem to be finally advancing in that we are no longer using religion or other dogmas to justify violence (or are we?). But I think that before we can even begin to attack the beliefs of other cultures and religions, we need to first consider our own history, which certainly hasn't been "spotless."

My only hope is that, in time, the Muslim world as a whole will also stop using its religion to justify violence (and discrimination, etc.). But I do not think that is something that can logically be enforced upon another country/belief system, since it is often human nature to go against that which we perceive as a threat to our own ideologies. Because of this, I do think that, in many ways, we in the West do have our hands tied when it comes to making racial changes in Islamic states. That is something that they are, most likely, going to have to work out on their own. Perhaps the best we can do, at this point, is to not go out of our way to piss them off or offend them, because I suspect that is only going to work opposite of what we should truly be hoping to achieve.

wow so many newbies post so much ill informed racist crap on this thread now.

Just waiting for someone to link to fox news as a source for there facts

And likewise so many libtards trying to justify the ridiculous beliefs that is Islam and arguing that the religion has nothing to do with terrorist acts.

That's what debate is about isn't it?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ingham-muslims


I would steer clear of London these days as you might get stoned for not having a beard, particularly around the Shorditch/Hoxton areas.

Debate is great. As long as everyone agrees with me
Freedom of speech is great. As long as people write/say what I like to hear

Speaking of Fox News, its now pretty clear where they get their editorial line.

I might be wrong, and DB can correct me if I am, but I think his point is that he'll defend your right to read out Martin Luther King speeches at a KKK rally, but as you're lying there thinking "At least I was right. I have the moral high ground" while having your head kicked in, he's not going to have a lot of sympathy. And that the 'intellecual elite' watching from the sidelines, shouting "yay you" don't seem to be getting their hands dirty helping you out. We pay people to do that for us.

You reap what you sow.

Something about facts getting in the way of a story methinks.

Doesn't say much for his "Investigative Project on Terrorism" group does it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-30773297

According to some not everyone is welcome to parade with "Je suis Charlie" slogan these days...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_6451742.html

Who said Wolli doesn't have a sense of humor

It was interesting to see the Turkish foreign minister in Paris. His regime oppresses the Media and supports Islamist terrorism.

He did apologise though, which is a very rare thing.

Is this the real face of freedom of expression



Instead of Facebook Community Standarts they should write Facebook Community Double Standarts

That precisely sums it up IMHO.
For me the whole debate hinges on 'Intent', as in comedy when a joke comes from the right place then it can be racist, homophobic, Islamaphobic etc.. and everyone can laugh together. However when its spiteful, churlish, condescending and targets people at the very bottom echelons of society then you lose my respect somewhat. Fine, carry on an do it to prove some high brow principle on your rights to free speech, but don't expect my applause.

I just read a comment to an article about this thing...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015...n_6451742.html

I'm sure the cartoonists would have been thrilled to know Bibi was there too.

+1, thanks, you beat me to it

+1 good point, why restrict it to newbies?

Yep. So much for the "freedom of speech..."