Talk Elections

General Politics => International General Discussion => Topic started by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 03, 2012, 09:44:12 PM



Title: Moslems
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 03, 2012, 09:44:12 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/03/egypt-court-rejects-second-mickey-cartoon-lawsuit/




Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Yelnoc on March 03, 2012, 10:10:28 PM
Every religion has its extremists.  Remember the Branch Dravidians?  Christianity just has less of this because most first world nations are (at least nominally) Christian.  And in the first world, the real God is the Almighty Dollar.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 03, 2012, 10:18:53 PM
I agree we all have our crazies... my point is Moslems have more then their fair share


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: MaxQue on March 03, 2012, 10:45:12 PM
I agree we all have our crazies... my point is Moslems have more then their fair share

Christians had their fair share in the past. Look at all the Religion Wars in Europe.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 03, 2012, 11:21:30 PM
Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.
It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: MaxQue on March 03, 2012, 11:40:20 PM
Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.
It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I give you traces in my post.

To be simple, religious moderation comes with civilisation, modernity and education.
Some of the countries are still feodal states, with absolute monarchy, which takes their support from clergy.

Intolerence is eriged as a system. See St. Barthelemy massacre in France. The system used protestant intolerance to reach his ends.

Christian world went through that in the 1700's and the 1800's.
Arabic world is going through that now, I think, but it will be long and painful.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Hash on March 04, 2012, 12:14:45 AM
Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.
It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

I might take you seriously if you could spell a basic word correctly. In my book, people who can't spell the word of what it is they're ranting about lose all their credibility, and I can hardly take them seriously. Sorry to say that this is such a situation.

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean here. I'm pretty intolerant of idiots or trolls (or people who can't spell basic words in their language correctly), yes, but I don't understand what you meant.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 04, 2012, 12:22:23 AM
Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.
It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

I might take you seriously if you could spell a basic word correctly. In my book, people who can't spell the word of what it is they're ranting about lose all their credibility, and I can hardly take them seriously. Sorry to say that this is such a situation.

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean here. I'm pretty intolerant of idiots or trolls (or people who can't spell basic words in their language correctly), yes, but I don't understand what you meant.

For someone as educated as you seem to think you are I would expect you to know Moslems is a fine way of spelling Muslims... two different ways- both are used often

If you are talking about my other spelling mistakes- I am not a good typist and my computer has some busted keys so typing is difficult. If you want to critique my spelling ratherthen argue my point then maybe you should find a grammer forum as opposed to a political one, jackass

As for the poster above- that is a fair point


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 04, 2012, 12:31:38 AM
Uh... Moslem is a correct alternative spelling of Muslim.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Beet on March 04, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
The correct spelling is mussulman... duh


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: MaxQue on March 04, 2012, 12:58:41 AM
Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.
It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

I might take you seriously if you could spell a basic word correctly. In my book, people who can't spell the word of what it is they're ranting about lose all their credibility, and I can hardly take them seriously. Sorry to say that this is such a situation.

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean here. I'm pretty intolerant of idiots or trolls (or people who can't spell basic words in their language correctly), yes, but I don't understand what you meant.

Sorry to disagree with you, but he is right than Moslems is used, too, even by some organisation, like the Lebanese Moslems Association, which represent Lebanese Muslims in Australia, which use both interchangely.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 04, 2012, 01:00:34 AM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moslem


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 04, 2012, 01:05:08 AM
"Moslem" is a little dated, but it's perfectly acceptable.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 01:27:58 AM
"Moslem" is a little dated, but it's perfectly acceptable.

Particularly from Clarence, who is also a little dated but perfectly acceptable.

Clarence: I'm joking, I don't actually think of old people as 'dated' but the juxtaposition was too good to pass up.

To answer your question, it's more or less what MaxQue said, except I'd add that there are still parts of the Third World where Christians act like this or can act like this under certain circumstances. There's this weird millennial flavor to a lot of African armed groups, for instance, which once you get south of the Sahel tend to be, or claim to be, very Christian.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Tender Branson on March 04, 2012, 01:57:07 AM
In German, you hear both "Moslem" and "Muslim" - so both are correct.

As for the question:

Islam is a slightly younger Religion than Christianity. When did it start to exist ? Sometime around the year 600 ?

Remember what the Christians did when their religion was only 1000-1600 years old ?

So, Islam has about 600 years to "settle down" and come in line with Christianity ... ;)


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 03:49:25 AM
I agree with the consensus...Muslims tend to come from inferior cultures and their religion is a bit more juvenile than the ones we are accustomed to.....wait, then why aren't newer religion even more violent...and for that matter, why aren't non-Muslims from the same places just as violent?

First let me say that this is one of the most spectacularly paternalistic-racist things I've ever read on the Atlas Forum.

Non-Muslims from places where Islam meets with other religions are, in fact, just as violent as the Muslims in those places, with some exceptions like the Copts in Egypt (religious minorities in the 'Arab World' proper, generally speaking; again, with exceptions within the exception).

There is actually a spectacular amount of Buddhist-on-Muslim violence in parts of Thailand, and Hindu-on-Muslim violence in India and Indonesia.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 04:15:21 AM
I agree with the consensus...Muslims tend to come from inferior cultures and their religion is a bit more juvenile than the ones we are accustomed to.....wait, then why aren't newer religion even more violent...and for that matter, why aren't non-Muslims from the same places just as violent?
First let me say that this is one of the most spectacularly paternalistic-racist things I've ever read on the Atlas Forum.
SWEET!  What do I win?
Quote
Non-Muslims from places where Islam meets with other religions are, in fact, just as violent as the Muslims in those places, with some exceptions like the Copts in Egypt (religious minorities in the 'Arab World' proper, generally speaking; again, with exceptions within the exception).
Can you give some examples?
Quote
There is actually a spectacular amount of Buddhist-on-Muslim violence in parts of Thailand,
Well lets look at that...from the list of terrorist acts in Thailand:
1972  Israeli Bangkok Embassy hostage crisis-A bunch of Palestinians attack the Israeli embassy
2005 Songkhla bombings-while no one ever claimed it, most clues point to the Patani United Liberation Organization (PULO)...guess what they fight for?
2006 Bangkok bombings-probably not Muslim related
2006 Hat Yai bombings-probably is Muslim related, but hard to say
2007 Songkhla bombings-same as above
2007 South Thailand bombings-same as above ( Buddhists or ethnic Chinese were the targets)
2009 Narathiwat bombing-not much info...but it was in the south
2012 Iranian blows up own self trying to kill Jews

2 out of the 8 was probably non-Muslim
Quote
and Hindu-on-Muslim violence in India and Indonesia.
I started doing the same for India, but holy crap they've got serious issues.  I know there are a lot of people there, but man, that's a lot of terrorism by a lot of different groups of people...Sikhs, commies, random regional groups, Muslims, Buddhists, Furries, Purple People Eaters and Flat Earthers.  I'll concede that Muslims aren't the champions of Terrorism in India (but they are certainly competitive!).

As for Indonesia, I haven't clicked on ALL the links, but after 8 or so I haven't seen one that wasn't done by Muslims.

In the future, when defending Muslims, you might not want to bring numbers into it.  It NEVER works out well.


..and no Xahar, we don't need yet another picture of the OKC bombing.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: 2952-0-0 on March 04, 2012, 04:20:01 AM
There's also the ethnic dimension to these conflicts. When I was in China last summer I noticed that Hui Muslims (who speak Chinese, have Chinese names, practice Chinese customs, etc) were broadly accepted in society, and historically were and are more likely to serve in the army. By contrast, other Muslim groups were viewed as "foreign" and more observant, and once I probably met an Uyghur pretending to be Hui from a Tibetan region. There are always more dimensions than just religion and to ignore these is very lazy and ignorant.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 04:24:23 AM
I didn't bring numbers into it. You did. You're also only looking at acts of immediate and proximate violence rather than uses of structural or symbolic violence, which in the case of Thailand are mostly directed against the Muslims. I will grant you Indonesia for the most part, because Indonesia among other things has a lot of friction between hardline and more syncretic Muslims, who aren't necessarily always as distinguishable from the 'Hindus' as you'd think.

One could argue that the sorts of violence that happen to be favored by Muslims lack finesse (let it never be said that they lack panache or pizzazz).

I'm also not 'defending Muslims' as such.

In general, returning to the subject of structural or symbolic violence, it is usually instructive to note one's own attitude towards other cultures if one is wondering why they might tend to respond in less-than-helpful ways.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 04, 2012, 04:46:09 AM
I would say that our cultures, that celebrate promiscuity and inebriation, while treating women as sex objects, can't exactly claim superiority.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 04:55:25 AM
I didn't bring numbers into it. You did. You're also only looking at acts of immediate and proximate violence rather than uses of structural or symbolic violence, which in the case of Thailand are mostly directed against the Muslims. I will grant you Indonesia for the most part, because Indonesia among other things has a lot of friction between hardline and more syncretic Muslims, who aren't necessarily always as distinguishable from the 'Hindus' as you'd think.
So there is some "structural or symbolic violence" against Muslims by non-Muslims in a couple of places.  I agree.  It's wrong and should be stopped.  But it pales when compared to the "structural or symbolic violence" against non-Muslims by Muslims all over the Muslim world.

There are very few long running conflicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts) on this planet that don't have a strong Muslim component to them.  Odd that.
I would say that our cultures, that celebrate promiscuity and inebriation, while treating women as sex objects, can't exactly claim superiority.
Seriously?  You're going to bring how we treat women into this?  And then say it's a negative to OUR culture?  Dude, if I wanted to play softball I'd join a league.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 05:13:47 AM
There are also relatively few poor countries without large Muslim populations (compared to the proportion of rich countries without them, not necessarily in absolute terms), although the Muslim world tends to be somewhat more well-off than some non-Muslim parts of these same continents. Everybody sh**ts on everybody else. The Muslim countries where they are indeed so structurally violent to non-Muslims collectively get sh**t on by another set of countries, which they (and a bunch of other countries) in turn collectively spew sh**t back at.

When this was explained to me as a principle of anthropology, I think there was a less scatological metaphor employed.

Treatment of women is honestly pretty awful in most places, in different ways. Very conservative Muslim beliefs (or many other kinds of very conservative beliefs) certainly don't help, of course.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: ingemann on March 04, 2012, 05:26:05 AM
I would say that our cultures, that celebrate promiscuity and inebriation, while treating women as sex objects, can't exactly claim superiority.

Muslim and their country leave nothing in the objectification of women as sex objects. The whole honoring women is bunch of sh**t. As for substance abuse they just tend to abuse other substances than alcohol.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 05:36:12 AM
There are also relatively few poor countries without large Muslim populations (compared to the proportion of rich countries without them, not necessarily in absolute terms), although the Muslim world tends to be somewhat more well-off than some non-Muslim parts of these same continents. Everybody sh**ts on everybody else. The Muslim countries where they are indeed so structurally violent to non-Muslims collectively get sh**t on by another set of countries, which they (and a bunch of other countries) in turn collectively spew sh**t back at.

When this was explained to me as a principle of anthropology, I think there was a less scatological metaphor employed.

Treatment of women is honestly pretty awful in most places, in different ways. Very conservative Muslim beliefs (or many other kinds of very conservative beliefs) certainly don't help, of course.

Indeed, economics and a history of victimhood/revenge play an important role in this, just as they do in almost all conflicts.


And in no way do we treat women awful in the west.  Maybe 40 years ago one could make that argument, but not now.  Yes, SOME women are treated poorly, but so are SOME men.  Women can do anything they want in the west.  There is a list of things they haven't done yet, yes, but the great majority of those things are pretty freaking elite and it's only a matter of time before even those barriers are broken (I'm thinking US President, athlete competing against men professionally in sport...huh...others I'm sure).  Yes, there is some residual sexism, especially it certain places, but normally when it's brought to light the guilty take a lot of sh**t.  Like when men have the balls to take care of their children, women stand up and say "this will not do!".  Like recently in New Zealand (http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/see-controversial-photo-dad-bottle-feeding-baby-does-155510760.html) when the government edited out a scene of a dad feeding his baby because of complaints from a breastfeeding organization.  As far as the west goes, women have almost as much power as the Jews or Skull and Bones.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 04, 2012, 05:36:55 AM
What a wonderful and productive thread.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Middle-aged Europe on March 04, 2012, 05:38:58 AM
I always wanted to do this in a thread, and now's finally the time :P :

()


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 04, 2012, 05:42:03 AM
And in no way do we treat women awful in the west.  Maybe 40 years ago one could make that argument, but not now.  Yes, SOME women are treated poorly, but so are SOME men.  Women can do anything they want in the west.  There is a list of things they haven't done yet, yes, but the great majority of those things are pretty freaking elite and it's only a matter of time before even those barriers are broken (I'm thinking US President, athlete competing against men professionally in sport...huh...others I'm sure).  Yes, there is some residual sexism, especially it certain places, but normally when it's brought to light the guilty take a lot of sh**t.  Like when men have the balls to take care of their children, women stand up and say "this will not do!".  Like recently in New Zealand (http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/see-controversial-photo-dad-bottle-feeding-baby-does-155510760.html) when the government edited out a scene of a dad feeding his baby because of complaints from a breastfeeding organization.  As far as the west goes, women have almost as much power as the Jews or Skull and Bones.

Well, I have somewhat quixotic and very seriously held feminist tendencies of the sort that would be most easily characterized as 'radical' were they not also religious and queer, so you won't convince me on this point (although I do see and respect the merits of the perspective you're arguing), but I'm glad we at least understand each other as regards the subject of the thread.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 05:48:35 AM
Indeed.  And I can understand still holding "radical" feminists views as you can still see a lot of sexism in our culture (and a lot more if your definition of sexism is fairly broad....oops, I said broad :) ).

What I don't understand is where the two posters previous to you are coming from.  (unless Sibb wasn't being sarcastic, but I'm thinking he was)


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 04, 2012, 05:53:37 AM
And in no way do we treat women awful in the west.  Maybe 40 years ago one could make that argument, but not now.  Yes, SOME women are treated poorly, but so are SOME men.  Women can do anything they want in the west.  There is a list of things they haven't done yet, yes, but the great majority of those things are pretty freaking elite and it's only a matter of time before even those barriers are broken (I'm thinking US President, athlete competing against men professionally in sport...huh...others I'm sure).  Yes, there is some residual sexism, especially it certain places, but normally when it's brought to light the guilty take a lot of sh**t.  Like when men have the balls to take care of their children, women stand up and say "this will not do!".  Like recently in New Zealand (http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/see-controversial-photo-dad-bottle-feeding-baby-does-155510760.html) when the government edited out a scene of a dad feeding his baby because of complaints from a breastfeeding organization.  As far as the west goes, women have almost as much power as the Jews or Skull and Bones.

Aren't you forgetting about the wage gap ?


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 06:01:28 AM
The great majority of the gap is due to hours worked and to the types of jobs men tend to do compared to the types of jobs women tend to do.  The actual gap (if there still is one) is fairly small and ever shrinking.  And with women making up a majority of college degrees consistently for the last decade (or whatever), that will hopefully only accelerate.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on March 04, 2012, 06:34:30 AM
The great majority of the gap is due to hours worked and to the types of jobs men tend to do compared to the types of jobs women tend to do.  The actual gap (if there still is one) is fairly small and ever shrinking.  And with women making up a majority of college degrees consistently for the last decade (or whatever), that will hopefully only accelerate.

I've consistently heard (though I haven't looked at the statistics myself) that the gap was still significant even considering identical jobs with the same amound of hours. Around 20% if I remember correctly. This probably regards France, but I doubt the US are much different for that matters.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: ingemann on March 04, 2012, 07:03:13 AM
The great majority of the gap is due to hours worked and to the types of jobs men tend to do compared to the types of jobs women tend to do.  The actual gap (if there still is one) is fairly small and ever shrinking.  And with women making up a majority of college degrees consistently for the last decade (or whatever), that will hopefully only accelerate.

I've consistently heard (though I haven't looked at the statistics myself) that the gap was still significant even considering identical jobs with the same amound of hours. Around 20% if I remember correctly. This probably regards France, but I doubt the US are much different for that matters.

The wage gap is a nightmare to get a clear picture off, men and women often work in different sectors which is hard to compare, we also have the fact that woman take long break from their work to get children, which mean they get a lower ancienity and is less likely to get promoted in their job. But yes most experts agree that a wage gap still exist.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 08:07:56 AM
Why would somebody that wants to make money hire somebody that costs 20% more if everything else is equal except what hangs (or not) between their legs?  Yes, a gender wage gap probably still exists, but it's nowhere near 20%.  I'll eat my hat if the actual number in the US is more than 5%. (though, as stated, getting a "good" number is very hard)


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 08:31:39 AM
link (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/)
Quote
Why the Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth
Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more. Top 10 most dangerous jobs (from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics): Fishers, loggers, aircraft pilots, farmers and ranchers, roofers, iron and steel workers, refuse and recyclable material collectors, industrial machinery installation and repair, truck drivers, construction laborers. They're all male-dominated jobs.
Men are far more likely to work in higher-paying fields and occupations (by choice). According to the White House report, "In 2009, only 7 percent of female professionals were employed in the relatively high paying computer and engineering fields, compared with 38 percent of male professionals." Professional women, on the other hand, are far more prevalent "in the relatively low-paying education and health care occupations."
Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.
Men work longer hours than women do. The average fulltime working man works 6 hours per week or 15 percent longer than the average fulltime working woman.
Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.
Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery, while women are more likely to pursue relatively lower-paid areas of specialization like pediatrician or dentist.
Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men, according to Nemko and data compiled from the Census Bureau (http://The trend was first identified several years ago in the country's biggest cities, but has broadened out to smaller locales and across more industries. Beyond major cities such as San Francisco and New York, the income imbalance is pronounced in blue-collar hubs and the fast-growing metro areas that have large immigrant populations.

The greatest disparity is in Atlanta, where young, childless women were paid 121% the level of their male counterparts, according to Reach Advisors.

These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.

Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.).
Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. The reason for the disparity, according to a Rochester Institute of Technology study, is that money is the primary motivator for 76% of men versus only 29% of women. Women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety, according to Nemko.
and from this link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html) inside the above..
Quote
In 2008, single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities, with incomes that were 8% greater on average, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data released Wednesday by Reach Advisors, a consumer-research firm in Slingerlands, N.Y.

The trend was first identified several years ago in the country's biggest cities, but has broadened out to smaller locales and across more industries. Beyond major cities such as San Francisco and New York, the income imbalance is pronounced in blue-collar hubs and the fast-growing metro areas that have large immigrant populations.

The greatest disparity is in Atlanta, where young, childless women were paid 121% the level of their male counterparts, according to Reach Advisors.

These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.

Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Sbane on March 04, 2012, 10:55:55 AM
Quote
and Hindu-on-Muslim violence in India and Indonesia.
I started doing the same for India, but holy crap they've got serious issues.  I know there are a lot of people there, but man, that's a lot of terrorism by a lot of different groups of people...Sikhs, commies, random regional groups, Muslims, Buddhists, Furries, Purple People Eaters and Flat Earthers.  I'll concede that Muslims aren't the champions of Terrorism in India (but they are certainly competitive!)

Muslims who actually live in India are about as violent as other groups. Pakistanis on the other hand...and it's worth noting that the terrorist groups in Pakistan do tend to accept the more radical Islam that is spewed out of the Middle East (well, Saudi Arabia really) rather than the way more moderate form of Islam that has been the norm in South Asia for centuries. And of course the stone age tribes that live along the Pakistani/Afghani border are different from the vast population of Pakistan. How many terrorists come out of Bangladesh, Dead0man?


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 04, 2012, 12:21:15 PM
It's spelt 'Muslim'.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: k-onmmunist on March 04, 2012, 12:26:08 PM
You're all wrong. They're Mohammedans.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 04, 2012, 12:35:52 PM
You're all wrong. They're Mohammedans.

Koranians.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: dead0man on March 04, 2012, 12:45:08 PM
How many terrorists come out of Bangladesh, Dead0man?
At least a 100,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen_Bangladesh)


(obviously not every one of them was a "terrorist", but then again, they ain't the only group.)

And then there was this other time when many in the govt of Bangladesh allowed this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-Truck_Arms_and_Ammunition_Haul_in_Chittagong) to happen.


Title: Re: Moslems
Post by: Sbane on March 04, 2012, 02:06:52 PM
How many terrorists come out of Bangladesh, Dead0man?
At least a 100,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen_Bangladesh)


(obviously not every one of them was a "terrorist", but then again, they ain't the only group.)

And then there was this other time when many in the govt of Bangladesh allowed this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-Truck_Arms_and_Ammunition_Haul_in_Chittagong) to happen.

Yeah, but compare it to Pakistan....Really considering how damn porous the border between India and Bangladesh is, you would expect more terrorist attacks in India from Bangladesh, if they were just as violent as the Pakistanis. Of course knowing Bengalis, the terrorists would try to form a trade union before they did any damn work.