If you read my entire post and not selectively quoted it, you would have realised I was being sarcastic for that entire comparison between Jews and Muslims. Do note, Jews were always hated in Europe, for religious and secular reasons, it was the Great Depression that pushed that hatred into genocide (something that may happen some day to Muslims in western society, in the same way 9/11 pushed relations with Muslims from ignorance to hatred), and the Holocaust that revealed the true extent of this hatred.
Yeah, I did realise this. You were still annoying me though.
In the same way, Muslims say that Westerners cannot come to terms with their more family and societal based morality and philosophy. If Muslims should compromise and "come to terms" with the West, the West should do the same with Muslims. Unless you are audacious enough to claim Westerners are factually right and Muslims factually wrong. Of course, not all Westerners buy into that individualism and logic-based morality, and not all Muslims have that family and societal based mentality either. Generalisations much?
Wrong.
Westerners
can come to terms with Muslim values on society and family. We don't make direct threats against innocent people because we can't understand or don't like the way they run their family. People in the West don't give a crap how a Muslim family or society works, as long as it doesn't impact upon them.
Not so for many Muslims it seems.
Then what's this talk about "Judeo-Christian values" and "I am a Christian, that is why I support Jews and Israel". Make up your mind, are Jews the ally or an enemy of Christianity? Or do you just make the rules up as you go, forgetting they killed the Christian God Jesus if it does not suit them at present.
lol.
You evidently have no idea about teh real reasons behind the foundation of Israel.
For starters, anti-Semitism is still just as rife in the Western world as it was before World War II and National Socialism. There are two reasons why modern Christendom (especially America) supports Israel:
1) Guilt. They all feel shit about not intervening in the Holocaust, so they are trying to make up for it.
2) Fundemental Christian obsession with the Second Coming. Jesus will apparently only return and bring about the Apocalypse if the Jews are in the Holy Land, and many devout Christians around the world openly welcome the rapture, the coming of New Jerusalem, the destruction of the Whore of Babylon and the End of Days. Don't discount the massively disproportianal political power that the Evangelicals wield.
Both of these reasons don't at all mean that the West actually likes the Jews.
Never said unintentional, just said a slip of the tongue. It could have been worded better, and I do not see how anyone can disagree with "women dressed scantily and behaving seductively can attract unwanted attention from men". The man is guilty when he commits rape, but women can do their part to avoid it. In the same way, a burglar is guilty when he breaks into your home and steals your stuff, but you could protect yourself by locking your doors and windows. It's not being insensitive, its using common sense. I do not see how pornography lets "women be treated with respect", I know Muslims have their own pornography issues but that is a problem with the individuals and not the message of Islam.
And depsite having the ability to express his ideas and opinions in a diplomatic and non-offensive manner, the Sheikh decides to make a crude and insulting comparison. Only a mental retard or someone who is purposely trying to stir the pot could possibly make such a slip of the tongue.
Great, do not care. I was discussing the comments made by the nutter sheik about uncovered meat, not about threats to burn down fires.
So? They were both made by Islamic holy men. What's the difference? No normal, caring member of society would ever say either such thing, even in jest.
Rudd is the Prime Minister, what he says affects the perceived value of our nation, changes corporate strategies in line with what they view as new political policy, affects our back pockets directly, can infuriate or befriend our neighbouring nations and the world in general, can change the policies of lower levels of government and the general instructions of the public service. It is a much greater impact than an Imam talking about uncovered meat left out for cats. Do you honestly think that story deserved as high a profile as it received?
Rudd is a career diplomat and poltician. When he does make a speech, it is purposely created to say as little as possible. His words are predictable, moderate and delibrately designed not to inflame or surprise the audience.
In fact, the only time when he has gone against this was his article on social captialism in The Monthly, which over the past month has probably received at least 8 pages of coverage, if not more, to thus be comparable to the coverage on Sheikh Halili that you seem so outraged over.
When the solution is "target Muslims" or "Muslims are guilty no-good terrorists until proven otherwise" then yes we do protest. If you had to undergo chemo until it was proven you did not have cancer in an attempt to "stop a cure for cancer", you would probably protest as well.
Huh? This makes no sense and you appear to have interpretted my words in the opposite way they were intended.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Don't.
