I just had my life threatened debating ideas within Islam!

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: uncommitted


Nothing you said justifies the very real and widely accepted pedophilia that goes on there, and which was the topic of the specific debate.

All I see here are apologists ignoring the actual issue and shifting blame towards those who dare criticise. Very typical.

Not quite sure what you think matters much in this thread - do you think it should? I'm not an apologist of anything that would be classed as child abuse, but then again I'm also not someone who gets a feeling of superiority by trying to attack other cultures or religions with sweet FA in the way of context. I understand in some US states the age of consent is 14 - that to me is child sex, anyone want to say why that's different?

Can have heated discussions with christians here on ATS with nobody getting threatened for their life but when muslims do what they do best [getting offended and threatening with violence] the apologists come out of the woodworks and defend them at all costs by spinning words and meanings.

OP has all the right to come on here and voice his annoyance about a well out of proportion reaction. If you find it unnecessary, don't read it.

It's all dandy telling us that everyone would get annoyed and threaten to kill someone over the internet if we insulted them, but then I think: Nahh, I have been insulted big time and never threatened anyone in that way EVER.

The culture thing goes two ways. OP comes from a culture where he has the freedom to question any medieval beliefs and expect to get a civilised answer.

All of you who love culture so much, how about fighting for our advanced civilisation and culture instead of always pandering to those that hold some very questionable beliefs?
Is it because you agree with them?

I so had enough of this. OP I am on your side 100%. Keep the posts coming, the truth has to be told and not stifled.

originally posted by: Hecate666
Can have heated discussions with christians here on ATS with nobody getting threatened for their life but when muslims do what they do best [getting offended and threatening with violence] the apologists come out of the woodworks and defend them at all costs by spinning words and meanings.

OP has all the right to come on here and voice his annoyance about a well out of proportion reaction. If you find it unnecessary, don't read it.

It's all dandy telling us that everyone would get annoyed and threaten to kill someone over the internet if we insulted them, but then I think: Nahh, I have been insulted big time and never threatened anyone in that way EVER.

The culture thing goes two ways. OP comes from a culture where he has the freedom to question any medieval beliefs and expect to get a civilised answer.

All of you who love culture so much, how about fighting for our advanced civilisation and culture instead of always pandering to those that hold some very questionable beliefs?
Is it because you agree with them?

I so had enough of this. OP I am on your side 100%. Keep the posts coming, the truth has to be told and not stifled.

Thats all fine and all but cant you do it in the 1001 other threads that have been created about this topic? Truth? Really so this thread is about truth now? And what is that truth exactly? Muslims are pedos? Muslims want to kill you because you dont agree with them?

Or is it you all generalizing Muslims all to willingly with any example of an incident that is brought up? And people that dont jump on your bandwagon of hate, fear and division are apologists?

Ill remind you of 2 facts: It is Muslims that are fighting Isis. And Islam has 100s of dispersions that are spread out over many different cultures.

And I dont see anyone taking that into account when replying here.

originally posted by: whatsup86

originally posted by: Hecate666
Can have heated discussions with christians here on ATS with nobody getting threatened for their life but when muslims do what they do best [getting offended and threatening with violence] the apologists come out of the woodworks and defend them at all costs by spinning words and meanings.

OP has all the right to come on here and voice his annoyance about a well out of proportion reaction. If you find it unnecessary, don't read it.

It's all dandy telling us that everyone would get annoyed and threaten to kill someone over the internet if we insulted them, but then I think: Nahh, I have been insulted big time and never threatened anyone in that way EVER.

The culture thing goes two ways. OP comes from a culture where he has the freedom to question any medieval beliefs and expect to get a civilised answer.

All of you who love culture so much, how about fighting for our advanced civilisation and culture instead of always pandering to those that hold some very questionable beliefs?
Is it because you agree with them?

I so had enough of this. OP I am on your side 100%. Keep the posts coming, the truth has to be told and not stifled.

Thats all fine and all but cant you do it in the 1001 other threads that have been created about this topic? Truth? Really so this thread is about truth now? And what is that truth exactly? Muslims are pedos? Muslims want to kill you because you dont agree with them?

Or is it you all generalizing Muslims all to willingly with any example of an incident that is brought up? And people that dont jump on your bandwagon of hate, fear and division are apologists?

Ill remind you of 2 facts: It is Muslims that are fighting Isis. And Islam has 100s of dispersions that are spread out over many different cultures.

And I dont see anyone taking that into account when replying here.

Yeah, some muslims are fighting muslims. You are correct. Who are these other ones then that are always angry and offended? Yes, they are muslims too.
It's almost as if there are different kinds of muslims. Just as there are christians and all those other baloney religions that can never agree what to believe.
I don't care about religion, only when it threatens the peace of my life. At the moment I don't see any christians doing this or I would lay into them just the same. I don't discriminate when I insult organised religion, they are all the same.

You say nobody takes into account that there are 'nice' muslims, yet I question if anyone takes into account that there are some really big pain in the ass muslims too. And it is those that we are annoyed about. If all muslims were nice I am sure this thread would never exist.

Just to clarify, the same goes for christians. As soon as they throw homosexuals of their church towers, I'll be the first one to rant against them as well. It's time to acknowledge that islam as believed by the uneducated masses is incompatible with our culture. Only then can we find a way to sort this out. Not if we keep on denying the undeniable.

I've been threatened here for challenging right wing conspiracy theories. There's nuts everywhere.

This is a true, though hard to believe, story. Years ago, at work, I was having a conversation with a Muslim man who was new to the work place, but who was a personal friend of our new supervisor, who was also new to the workplace and had hired the Muslim guy because he was friendly with him where they both used to work. The new supervisor was not a Muslim. He was an Italian American immigrant to Toronto and a decent guy.

During the course of this conversation, in which others were present, and which was not intense or controversial and the actual subject of which, I cannot even remember, the Muslim guy made a gesture, as if he was going to give me a backhanded slash with a saber, and told me, "I can kill you."

I think he was reacting to my personal confidence and comfort level in talking to him, a Muslim, from Pakistan. I am a very confident person, owing to a good education and some martial arts training, although this had nothing to do with our conversation. I am not a person who swaggers around telegraphing confidence. It's much more casual and relaxed. I am much more likely to avoid confrontation or just get out of the way than make a fuss.

He wasn't mad at me. I think my casualness and lack of nervousness somehow got to him a little.

He was informing me that he had an edge, not the edge of knowing the boss, because that didn't cut it in our union shop. He was telling me that he had another edge. He was Muslim and Muslims are allowed to kill the infidel. He didn't expand on it in that way, but that's what he meant. What else could he mean?

Islam, as a religion, has serious built in problems around the issue of tolerance. They can't even tolerate each other. Neither could Christians, at one time, but Christians have worked on it and it's not really an issue any more. Muslims need to get it together and crap can the whole "kill the infidel" motif.

Note: It might be worth it to point out that Christianity has a 600 year head start on Islam in terms of ironing the wrinkles out of the religion. Just saying. (I've known a lot of very nice Muslims in my time and was on great terms with them as casual friends.)

a reply to: TechniXcality

I've enjoyed many of your OPs and posts and have learned a lot from you. Seem like a nice young person.

But let me proffer some thoughts that might make your life a bit easier and more productive.

Debating, talking to, arguing with...........fanatics...........is a waste of your time. There's really nothing to discuss. You won't learn anything except the fact that they are..........fanatics. Many are full blown loons. In fact discussing anything with them is as much a waste of time as:

watching paint dry
watching grass grow.
watching sand blow in the desert.
watching rain drops flow down your car window.

Better uses of your time include.
Going to the bathroom to relieve yourself of unwanted bodily waste.
Throwing the ball for your dog to retrieve.
Eating Gelato.
Making a spaghetti dinner, (with or without meatballs).
Throwing rocks at the Circus Train as it passes through your hometown.
Watching the aeration pond at your local water sewerage treatment plant.
Gardening with Diesel.
Trying how to figure out a way to make napalm paint balls that ignite on contact without burning down your neighborhood.

Have I made my point?

You're trying to rationalize the details when you should be happy in understanding the bigger picture. They have no logic in their thinking when you dig deep.... when you create a thought that makes someone doubt their faith, you might as well have pulled a gun on him. It makes no sense as humanity should always prevail. Do realize though, they would kill you and not think twice if you were having this conversation in a locked room. Are you willing to go that far? I don't think so because your first reaction was to come here and complain that they aren't playing by your "stand there and let me criticize your faith rules." This world is real, these Skype conversations you are having are not. I hope by the time these terrorists are knocking at your door on your country's soil that you've grown balls large enough to fight back. I've been trained and I know how to stand my ground, but one person cannot protect a country.... If you live somewhere you love, you must protect it. "Homeland security" is not an agency, it should be practiced by every citizen in this country. Countrymen from around the world have shown they'll die for theirs, especially civilians.... please don't ever think you can take a backseat and let the veterans fight for you.

Is it even possible to build a bridge with a culture that violently protects behaviors we find so repulsive? How can there be compromise where this issue is concerned? Are we to turn a blind eye and let them proceed? Are we to impose our moral beliefs on them? When a conversation devolves into threats of violence when confronted with non negotiable issues, it tells me that they do not want to compromise to blend with the west.

This reminds me of the Green Barrett who was kicked out of the army for protecting that young boy Afghan rape victim. Are we to turn a blind eye in the name of compromise? I dont see a compromise in the other camp, and I dont see a compromise on this issue in the west either. Its also a problem that they seem to have a "No life Matters" attitude and has permission from God to end mine if they choose. Im not going to change my mind about my life mattering or having sex with a child. So, I dont know how to build a bridge with this culture. These are just too big.

Green Barrett article:
www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
a reply to: uncommitted


Nothing you said justifies the very real and widely accepted pedophilia that goes on there, and which was the topic of the specific debate.

All I see here are apologists ignoring the actual issue and shifting blame towards those who dare criticise. Very typical.

Not quite sure what you think matters much in this thread - do you think it should? I'm not an apologist of anything that would be classed as child abuse, but then again I'm also not someone who gets a feeling of superiority by trying to attack other cultures or religions with sweet FA in the way of context. I understand in some US states the age of consent is 14 - that to me is child sex, anyone want to say why that's different?

Please provide your sources that say that it is legal for adults to have sex with 14 year olds in the US. Also, generally, you have to be 18 to get married in the US.

Egypt did change the law in 2008 to 18, but,

Fifteen percent of all marriages in Egypt are child marriages, announced Egypt’s Minister of Population Hala Youssef on Thursday. Despite Egypt changing the legal age of marriage to 18 in 2008, child marriage continues across the country and particularly in underprivileged areas, said Youssef. According to a study published by the National Council for Women in 2013, 22 percent of girls are married before the age of eighteen

However, some European countries have an age of consent of 14, but I don't think it applies to stuff like this,

Egyptian girls are often married off temporarily in exchange for a sum that is often arranged by the parents and the temporary husband. According to the 2015 Trafficking in Persons Report, individuals from the Gulf “purchase Egyptian women and girls for ‘temporary’ or ‘summer’ marriages for the purpose of prostitution or forced labor; these arrangements are often facilitated by the victims’ parents and marriage brokers, who profit from the transaction.” One of the common ways to ‘sell girls’ for temporary marriages is through ‘marriage brokers’. Marriage brokers take girls as young as 11 from underprivileged Egyptian villages to wealthy Arab visitors. A one day ‘pleasure marriage’ can be arranged for as little as EGP 800 ($US 100). The sum is then split between the child’s parents and the marriage broker.

Summer marriages, however, have become more common and can be arranged for costs ranging from EGP 20,000 ($US 2,500) to EGP 70,000 ($US 9,000).

In a 2013 statement, Egypt’s Child Anti-Trafficking Unit at the National Council for Childhood and Motherhoodcondemned child marriages as prostitution. According to Al-Arabiya, the Director of the Unit said that some girls had been married 60 times by the time they turn 18

egyptianstreets.com...

a reply to: DutchMasterChief
Sooo, Jerry Lee Lewis didn't legally marry his 13 year old cousin then?

There was a post on ATS a while back that did list the consensual ages per state (sorry, I glanced at that thread at the time as it was on a similar subject but I don't have a link), and if I remember rightly the age of consent DID start at 14. Actually, now I've gone to look, according to wikipedia in the USA legal age of consent (dependent on State) appears to now be no younger than 16. I do note that with parental consent, some states allow marriage at the age of 14...

en.wikipedia.org...

Work that one out!

I'll be quite clear. I'm no apologist for anyone abusing the trust of anyone, particularly the young and the vulnerable and there are fewer more sickening crimes than sexual abuse of children. I also haven't seen anyone in this thread acting as an apologist for such behaviour.

What I do feel though is that to criticise another culture, one you may not be familiar with requires an understanding of that culture and its context. That doesn't make things 'all right', but it means you aren't entering a conversation about things that happened over a thousand years ago with solely a perspective based on 20th/21st century culture in your own environment, or discussing modern day happenings in another part of the world with an expectation that their culture and beliefs should map to your own. That's not being an apologist, it's being aware that this is a big world with a lot of different cultures.

So let's think about different cultures. This whole thread is clearly about Muslim men marrying girls younger than the legal age in America - let's not dress it up, that's the crux of the thread. Would you call Mexico City a predominantly Muslim city? No? Interesting then that the age of consent there appears to be 12.

en.wikipedia.org...

So maybe if there is a discussion to be had it can be based at that global context - does that sound reasonable? Again, I'm not an apologist for anything, but I do prefer to have information to back up my thought process.

a reply to: Naabaahii

I am a veteran do not disrespect me like that, your talking to the wrong one, in fact I was 11bravo. I discuss these things among people because I feel I have a vested interest, and I wish to stay sharp.

a reply to: uncommitted

Sooo, Jerry Lee Lewis didn't legally marry his 13 year old cousin then?

This was in 1956. I don't know what the rules were back then but I do know that it wasn't accepted by society, and it ruined his career.

Actually, now I've gone to look, according to wikipedia in the USA legal age of consent (dependent on State) appears to now be no younger than 16. I do note that with parental consent, some states allow marriage at the age of 14...

Yes, and do you think this involves marriages of people that are both underaged and got pregnant, or adults with minors?

I'll be quite clear. I'm no apologist for anyone abusing the trust of anyone, particularly the young and the vulnerable and there are fewer more sickening crimes than sexual abuse of children. I also haven't seen anyone in this thread acting as an apologist for such behaviour.

I didn't see anyone condemn the practise. I saw people attacking the OP for condemning that practise.

That's not being an apologist, it's being aware that this is a big world with a lot of different cultures.

You are being an apologist right now by saying, "ah, it's just a cultural difference....".

So let's think about different cultures. This whole thread is clearly about Muslim men marrying girls younger than the legal age in America - let's not dress it up, that's the crux of the thread.

Exactly, this is the topic of this thread.

Would you call Mexico City a predominantly Muslim city? No? Interesting then that the age of consent there appears to be 12.

No I would not because it isn't.

Ridiculous suggestion. Did I say that it was restricted to muslims?

Anyways,

The age of consent in Mexico is complex. Typically, Mexican states have a "primary" age of consent (which may be as low as 12), and sexual conduct with persons below that age is always illegal. Sexual relations which occur between adults and teenagers under 18 are left in a legal gray area: laws against corruption of minors as well as estupro laws can be applied to such acts, at the discretion of the prosecution. These laws are situational and are subject to interpretation.

Now if you would write a thread about Mexican adults having sex with 12 year olds I would condemn the practise too.

Again, I didn't see any of you condemn such a thing.

a reply to: DutchMasterChief

1956 is hardly comparable to Mohammed's time, now is it? And if you are telling me that you aren't referring to Mohammed, I can tell you that he has been mentioned several times in this thread alone with regards to the possible age of his wife. It shows a clear hypocrisy that people will conveniently ignore.

The ages of consent listed in that link don't specify if both are underage or only one, so that is a moot point isn't it?

I'm not being an apologist by saying it's a cultural difference, I'm saying that I don't like to look at everything in the world purely and wholly from the perspective of where I sit in that world. To do so is extremely naive.

You didn't say it was restricted to Muslims, and I didn't say you did, but if you'd care to look at the thread you will find that is what every other poster has restricted it to - Muslim men having sex/marrying underage girls. The wiki entry I provided (and yes, Mexico city is an extreme example) shows that what is considered underage in one country/state may not be considered the same in another. I thought that was fairly obvious.

I don't need to feel the need to condemn anyone who has sex with people under the age of consent - I shouldn't need to as the situation as it stands is quite clear. If someone wanted to start a thread defending such acts then I would question why they are doing so.

And to add, this talk about varying ages of consensual sex doesn't really apply to the widespread practise of young girls being pimped out by their parents to marry and have sex with some guy for money, which is what this thread is about, and none of the apologists is talking about.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Bottom line, there is no valid reason to threaten the life of another unless your life is in jeopardy.

You could post pictures of Mohammed, still not a reason to have your life threatened.

Basically, if someone doesn't have a cogent reply, then the go-to is to threaten the other person. It eliminates the need for intelligent thought and effectively changes the subject.

a reply to: uncommitted

1956 is hardly comparable to Mohammed's time, now is it? And if you are telling me that you aren't referring to Mohammed, I can tell you that he has been mentioned several times in this thread alone with regards to the possible age of his wife. It shows a clear hypocrisy that people will conveniently ignore.

Whatever point you are trying to make makes no sense. Aisha was nine years old. I am not comparing mohammeds time to this time. The point is that most muslims living in current times don't want to distance themselves from it.

I'm not being an apologist by saying it's a cultural difference, I'm saying that I don't like to look at everything in the world purely and wholly from the perspective of where I sit in that world. To do so is extremely naive.

That's the exact same thing, apologist.

You didn't say it was restricted to Muslims, and I didn't say you did,

You clearly implied that I said that when you posted this,

Would you call Mexico City a predominantly Muslim city? No? Interesting then that the age of consent there appears to be 12.

There is no other way I can interprete it.

The wiki entry I provided (and yes, Mexico city is an extreme example) shows that what is considered underage in one country/state may not be considered the same in another. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Like I pointed out to you with the qoute I provided, it isn't a straightforward age of consent of 12, it depends on the situation.

Furthermore, it takes nothing away from the premise of this thread.

I don't need to feel the need to condemn anyone who has sex with people under the age of consent - I shouldn't need to as the situation as it stands is quite clear. If someone wanted to start a thread defending such acts then I would question why they are doing so.

But you do feel the need to start whining to the OP because he did condemn such things. All you do is make apologies. Your first post was about how this happened in Europe too, 4 centuries ago.

So I suppose that makes it right and prohibits anyone from criticising it when it is happening today? Bugger off.

originally posted by: DutchMasterChief
And to add, this talk about varying ages of consensual sex doesn't really apply to the widespread practise of young girls being pimped out by their parents to marry and have sex with some guy for money, which is what this thread is about, and none of the apologists is talking about.

If that's what this thread was about I would totally agree that in any part of the world that is shameful - although it's interesting that it's how many dynasties around the world from both a royal and in some cases corporate perspective came to be what they are today.

It's not though, the OP makes no explicit mention of those points, but this is just getting tiresome.

a reply to: uncommitted

I'm not being an apologist by saying it's a cultural difference, I'm saying that I don't like to look at everything in the world purely and wholly from the perspective of where I sit in that world. To do so is extremely naive.

So you really are saying that there are circumstances in which stuff like this is acceptable? Can you expand on that? Like what?

Like when if you would move there, and adopt the culture, you would be paying parents to have sex with their underaged daughter? That kind of perspective?