Father of French man Samel Paty’s Killer Praises His Son, Says with the Beheading, ‘The Debt of All Muslims Will be Settled’

[duluxe]

In countries that practice true islam, religion and politics are mixed!

 

[JohnTan]

In countries that practice true islam, religion and politics are mixed!

In countries that practice the true mahomeddan religion, islamic religion and politics mean the same thing.

 

[Loofydralb]

Good. That's an admission that your fake prophet is a rapist. Statutory rape is still rape.

I agree. moslem kids shouldn't be attending religious schools that praises an islamic political system that operates on religion.

In Islam, consensual is not rape regardless of age. The only people hung over the issue of statutory rape are the mentally retard.

And religion is not politics you dummy.

 

[syed putra]

In countries that practice true islam, religion and politics are mixed!

There is no such thing as belief and politics.
The whole idea of creating a religion was to control the masses.
In the belief, it's personal.

 

[nightsafari]

Good. That's an admission that your fake prophet is a rapist. Statutory rape is still rape.



I agree. moslem kids shouldn't be attending religious schools that praises an islamic political system that operates on religion.

what can I say? some people prefer mass indoctrination rather than to find means to safeguard against mass indoctrination.

if he wishes to bury his head in the sand, that's his choice. Anybody with functioning logic can easily make their own conclusions about the validity of his opinions.

 

[nightsafari]

In countries that practice true islam, religion and politics are mixed!

it is actually fulfilling it's intended purpose. Abrahamic religions all share this trait.

God in these religions is a red herring. Only used to bait people to deliver political power and $$$. They claim to be the only ones able to deliver god which they have no right nor ownership to. That's how they get the support of the unsuspecting. Make fantastic promises.

 

[JohnTan]

In Islam, consensual is not rape regardless of age.

Adults fucking kids is pedophilia. Tricking kids into getting fucked by men old enough to be their grandfathers is really fucked up.

The only people hung over the issue of statutory rape are the mentally retard.

The only people offended by statutory rape are perverts and child rapists. Sounds like you and your arabian 'prophet'.

 

[JohnTan]

That's how they get the support of the unsuspecting. Make fantastic promises.

Actually, people can only use religion to get support and money if they offer you paradise in exchange for your money, your good deeds, pious acts.

That's why in Christ, people are saved by Grace and Grace alone. Don't need your credit card, don't need your donation, don't need you to be a volunteer or do good deeds in exchange. Jesus granted salvation to the thief who hung beside him on the Cross without the thief offering any material wealth in exchange.

It's just sad that some believers turn salvation by Grace into something else. And it's more ludicrous when non believers scoff at salvation being offered so easily and yet they find believing so immensely difficult.

 

[JohnTan]

if he wishes to bury his head in the sand, that's his choice. Anybody with functioning logic can easily make their own conclusions about the validity of his opinions.

The fruits of the mohammedan religion is obvious. Any society that is deeply islamic enough turns out poor, lowly literate, extremely intolerant to other beliefs and even towards more moderate moslems, suffer from poor health and shorter life spans, have and have a seemingly unlimited list of things that others must do in order to respect their mohammedan beliefs.

 

[Loofydralb]

Adults fucking kids is pedophilia. Tricking kids into getting fucked by men old enough to be their grandfathers is really fucked up.



The only people offended by statutory rape are perverts and child rapists. Sounds like you and your arabian 'prophet'.

But your wife did it with her uncle when she was 12.

 

[JohnTan]

But your wife did it with her uncle when she was 12.

Your mother did it with you when you were 12?? Do you need therapy?

 

[Loofydralb]

Your mother did it with you when you were 12?? Do you need therapy?

Oh, I vaguely remembered I did it with some old Chinese lady, but definitely not my mother. Maybe your mother? Don't tell me you are my son!

I remember her tunnel was really loose. I had to work hard on her.

 

[whoami]

Dont know exact case. Suing is acceptable violence is not. If Muslims want to sue Charlie Hebdo why not? Double standard? Sure. One takes another to court, the other goes on a killing spree.


I already said it's ok. They can say whatever they want. If they draw in private and show only their friends and family what's the big deal? If they publish it in newspaper or social media, it's different. It becomes a public denouncement and a matter of public defamation. I can then sue them for damages. It also becomes a criminal matter where the state will prosecute them depending on the laws of the land. Not vigilante violence. Why run around shooting, slashing and bombing? Europe did this a few hundred years ago as normal life. It's not normal life now. It's criminal life.

Let the punishment fit the crime. Unjustified defamation deserves defamation not death. Freedom of expression believe it or not is misunderstood by almost everyone who uses it. Almost everyone cannot distinguish between rights, freedoms and privileges. Freedom of expression is a privilege granted in a free society. Meaning government allows it and people should not stab each other in disagreements. Where violence and crimes against a person is a way of life, freedom of expression cannot coexist.

In fact you have precisely pointed out why Islam (not in Singapore) is such a problem in other societies. The fact that violence and vigilantism is a normal and acceptable response in other Islamic societies is entirely the problem. Where you can sue the person into stopping why should you kill him?


It's not evading. What is there to evade??? It's explaining with more detail for your benefit so you can understand the point I'm making better. And I've already answered in the previous post and I've answered it again above. Answers same both times. Would you like me to highlight it to make sure you don't miss it?

1. Why sue? He should just keep quiet. Afterall freedom of speech isnt it? Yes. Muslims should just remain calm. But like i always said not everyone think and behave the same. Humans are imperfect. What more if theres 1.9 billion of them.

2. As mentioned in (2). Why sue? U should remain calm mah. Freedom of speech is one thing but there must be a limit mah. If u disagree, then u should not sue. Just accept the outcome. Yes, violence is not accepted. Already mentioned in (2). No need to repeat so many times.

3. Rather invite unnecessary death i think its better to avoid insulting one another especially concerning religion. Ur an atheist. U may not agree. Fine with me. Just agree to disagree.

4. Islam is not a problem. Its the believers. Some may not be able to accept such insults. But to protest by violent means, its not acceptable. Thats why Spore is doing fine. Garment cant please everyone. But is good to hear trouble makers punished by law if they insults other believers/religion. Sue here and there. For wat. Why waste money on legal fees.

 

[whoami]

@whoami

reproduced and highlighted for clarification:

3. Fight for what? Even draw naked pictures of my sister, he can claim whatever he wants. I don't care 2 hoots. My ego is not so sensitive and fragile. If my sister go and pose for him, I will ask her what's wrong with her otak. If she still wants to do so and he still wants to draw it's her pasal. Who am I to control her? If she has children and it's affecting their lives negatively, then I will take more action.



edit : If I am not clear, ask me to clarify. I have no interest in making a statement and running away from it. If I am not clear or you do not understand, please don't draw the conclusion that I am evading. I will happily repeat the point if you are willing to stick to the same subject.

as always peace be upon you.

Peace be with u too.

Apology. I am not insulting your family members. Just draw a comparison. Let say not just ur sister. Including your mother, wife and daughters too. Do u accept such insults? Drawings and pictures of your mum and wife nude, parade in public and in social media? If u ok with freedom of speech, freedom of this and that,then u should remain calm. Right? Why sue? When u start sueing, tat already prove its not acceptable,right?

 

[nightsafari]

1. Why sue? He should just keep quiet. Afterall freedom of speech isnt it? Yes. Muslims should just remain calm. But like i always said not everyone think and behave the same. Humans are imperfect. What more if theres 1.9 billion of them.

2. As mentioned in (2). Why sue? U should remain calm mah. Freedom of speech is one thing but there must be a limit mah. If u disagree, then u should not sue. Just accept the outcome. Yes, violence is not accepted. Already mentioned in (2). No need to repeat so many times.

3. Rather invite unnecessary death i think its better to avoid insulting one another especially concerning religion. Ur an atheist. U may not agree. Fine with me. Just agree to disagree.

4. Islam is not a problem. Its the believers. Some may not be able to accept such insults. But to protest by violent means, its not acceptable. Thats why Spore is doing fine. Garment cant please everyone. But is good to hear trouble makers punished by law if they insults other believers/religion. Sue here and there. For wat. Why waste money on legal fees.

1. Freedom of speech includes freedom to complain about speech. As I said. Very, very few people understand this. Westerners included. Most people just shoot their mulut off using this and when their reply comes they don't like they get angry. To answer your point directly. Everyone should remain calm.

2. Suing is a direct response to harm in economic and social benefits without resorting to violence. If you are experiencing loss of income and benefits as a result of someone else's speech, it is a freedom to go to law to resort to compensation. Everyone should remain calm.

3. This is an interesting point you make. Please follow with me because I'm going to challenge your thinking process. But first of all, let me answer your 2nd point in #3. I'm not an atheist, lah alamak. I actually place religionist and atheist as the same kind of people arguing opposite points. Both are damn cock sure they are right. How can be sure? So sombong to insist they are right when no one can be sure? Mana boleh? Macam like politics. No one right yet everyone insist others follow them.

I lama sudah mentioned, no one on this planet alive or dead can prove or disprove. They can claim and insist. They also make up their own evidence. In fact, the only "evidence" they have is circumstantial evidence and/or self-fabricated. No exceptions to this rule so far. The only logical conclusion possible is agnostic towards god itself. The other more compelling and more troubling conclusion is that religionists and atheists are both selfish, biased and arrogant.

On the your main point of inviting unnecessary death in #3. Inviting is a very interesting word you use. I'll explain why. I promised a challenge for you and it is this : The process of inviting trouble is also the process of inviting progress. If everyone agrees not to invite trouble, we all end up doing nothing new. Wake up stick to the same routine go to sleep and eventually repeat sampai mati. No progress. If you wish to progress, someone has to take a risk and in your words "invite trouble". I don't want to feed you my thoughts. Please go and in your own time go and think about this. Let the thoughts and conclusions be yours.

4. This is also interesting. Believe it or not, the people who use this argument the most are Americans. Guns are not the problem. People are. This is 1 long discussion in itself. If you wish we can start separate post. You actually have a 2nd point here about violence and insults. Tell me why Muslims around the world are the most prone to respond to insults with violence. I'm interested in your opinion. Similarly, I can ask why stab and kill for what? Murder for insults?

I take this opportunity to point out to you that scripture has started more wars and conflict than I care to document.

As always peace.

 

[nightsafari]

Peace be with u too.

Apology. I am not insulting your family members. Just draw a comparison. Let say not just ur sister. Including your mother, wife and daughters too. Do u accept such insults? Drawings and pictures of your mum and wife nude, parade in public and in social media? If u ok with freedom of speech, freedom of this and that,then u should remain calm. Right? Why sue? When u start sueing, tat already prove its not acceptable,right?

Please be assured, I do not take what you said as an insult. You seem very concerned about it. Please be at peace. I am not at all thinking about being insulted.

Alright. There are many levels of response available to us. Let's just say I don't like it right? You agree with me that we don't like it too? Ok so now what? You want him to stop? Tell him to stop. If he doesn't stop and is causing you harm, then sue him. If he doesn't cause you harm then move on. There are many, many permutations on how you can handle this. You should resort to reason and feeling rather than rules.

Acceptable and agreeable are different things. I don't agree with most things, but I accept most things. If you have time and wish to discuss this and any other point, we can break it down and discuss it simply. This format online forum is very difficult to do a discussion with. Keep it simple. 2-3 points at a time. This one way too many points.

On another note regarding me evading your questions. I though about why it could be, but I think this is actually your fault. Not blaming, just pointing out error in the process. I think it's because you used an example that is not comparable. I think you are asking me for a conclusion to a problem that really doesn't exist for me. Perhaps a clearer example for you to use would be like if I really respected Mao Zedong and think that he unified China and everyday people say shit about him and post online pictures about him and say he is a shit eater stinking yellow pig or something like that right? I took your question literally. Later on I realized you're basically trying to ask me what I think about people insulting Mohammed if I was Muslim. Am I right? If this is your question I can see your point and answer it easily. Just ask. I don't want to make this post any longer if my guess is wrong.

The short answer is living people have and dead people get different treatment from me. See lah. I try to keep this short and clear now so many paragraphs.

As I said before, freedom of speech, very few people understand. The version that all the angmohs like to say on tv or social media is actually wrong. The one sinkies like to parrot is lagi wrong.

 

[whoami]

1. Freedom of speech includes freedom to complain about speech. As I said. Very, very few people understand this. Westerners included. Most people just shoot their mulut off using this and when their reply comes they don't like they get angry. To answer your point directly. Everyone should remain calm.

2. Suing is a direct response to harm in economic and social benefits without resorting to violence. If you are experiencing loss of income and benefits as a result of someone else's speech, it is a freedom to go to law to resort to compensation. Everyone should remain calm.

3. This is an interesting point you make. Please follow with me because I'm going to challenge your thinking process. But first of all, let me answer your 2nd point in #3. I'm not an atheist, lah alamak. I actually place religionist and atheist as the same kind of people arguing opposite points. Both are damn cock sure they are right. How can be sure? So sombong to insist they are right when no one can be sure? Mana boleh? Macam like politics. No one right yet everyone insist others follow them.

I lama sudah mentioned, no one on this planet alive or dead can prove or disprove. They can claim and insist. They also make up their own evidence. In fact, the only "evidence" they have is circumstantial evidence and/or self-fabricated. No exceptions to this rule so far. The only logical conclusion possible is agnostic towards god itself. The other more compelling and more troubling conclusion is that religionists and atheists are both selfish, biased and arrogant.

On the your main point of inviting unnecessary death in #3. Inviting is a very interesting word you use. I'll explain why. I promised a challenge for you and it is this : The process of inviting trouble is also the process of inviting progress. If everyone agrees not to invite trouble, we all end up doing nothing new. Wake up stick to the same routine go to sleep and eventually repeat sampai mati. No progress. If you wish to progress, someone has to take a risk and in your words "invite trouble". I don't want to feed you my thoughts. Please go and in your own time go and think about this. Let the thoughts and conclusions be yours.

4. This is also interesting. Believe it or not, the people who use this argument the most are Americans. Guns are not the problem. People are. This is 1 long discussion in itself. If you wish we can start separate post. You actually have a 2nd point here about violence and insults. Tell me why Muslims around the world are the most prone to respond to insults with violence. I'm interested in your opinion. Similarly, I can ask why stab and kill for what? Murder for insults?

I take this opportunity to point out to you that scripture has started more wars and conflict than I care to document.

As always peace.

1. Yes. We should remain calm. But we are talking about human beings. They have feelings. Not everyone think or calm like u or me, no? U see, even hypocrite Macron at the receiving end, also tak boleh tahan. Now he want to sue over the Hitler billboard.

2. Not everyone are educated and follow rules of law lah. Look at those 3rd world countries. How can u expect everyone to think straight and rational? Of course we should remain calm. But but...it has its limits. But of course killing is uncalled for. But we cant control one's feelings and emotion, no?

3. Inviting trouble equal inviting progress? Hmmm.......I insult ur mother, wife, daughters and sisters....drew nude pictures of them of display in public and social media. U called that progress?

4. Ok. Just cos others can take insults, doesnt mean i must also follow them, no? As for Muslims, u see, we love our Prophet pbuh even more than our parents. Tere are 1.9 billion Muslims. U expect 1.9 billion to be cool, patience, dont commit crimes? Come on. Why u target those very few who committed violence whereas u ignore majority Muslims who are not? Bias kan.

My scripture started more wars? Nope, Christians yes. And followed by ur group, Atheist.


body count
key findings and analysistable 2: 0–2008 ce
Civilization (Minimum Death) (Toll Maximum Death) (Toll Median Death Toll)

Antitheist (96,786,000) (153,789,000) (125,287,500)
Buddhist 80,116,000 95,777,500 87,946,750
Christian (119,323,000) (236,560,500) (177,941,750)
Indic 1,344,500 3,434,000 2,389,250
Islamic 21,964,000 41,923,000 31,943,500
Primal-Indigenous 34,232,000 56,890,000 45,561,000
Sinic 95,612,500 120,235,000 107,923,750

Total 449,378,000 708,609,000 578,993,500

Interpreting the results: Our findings show that, using the entire data set for the period 0-2008, politically and reli-giously motivated violence has cost between 449.38 mil-lion and 708.61 million lives. The Christian civilization’s share of this is the largest with between 119.32 million and 236.56 million victims (median 177.94 million). In second place is the Antitheist civilization which has contributed with a median figure of 125.29 million deaths. The Sinic civilization is third with 107.92 million deaths (median). Fourth is the Buddhist civilization with ca. 87.95 million deaths. Fifth is the Primal-Indigenous civilization with 45.56 million deaths. Sixth is the Islamic civilization with 31.94 million deaths. Finally, seventh and last, is the Indic
civilization with just under 2.39 million deaths.

 

[whoami]

Please be assured, I do not take what you said as an insult. You seem very concerned about it. Please be at peace. I am not at all thinking about being insulted.

Alright. There are many levels of response available to us. Let's just say I don't like it right? You agree with me that we don't like it too? Ok so now what? You want him to stop? Tell him to stop. If he doesn't stop and is causing you harm, then sue him. If he doesn't cause you harm then move on. There are many, many permutations on how you can handle this. You should resort to reason and feeling rather than rules.

Acceptable and agreeable are different things. I don't agree with most things, but I accept most things. If you have time and wish to discuss this and any other point, we can break it down and discuss it simply. This format online forum is very difficult to do a discussion with. Keep it simple. 2-3 points at a time. This one way too many points.

On another note regarding me evading your questions. I though about why it could be, but I think this is actually your fault. Not blaming, just pointing out error in the process. I think it's because you used an example that is not comparable. I think you are asking me for a conclusion to a problem that really doesn't exist for me. Perhaps a clearer example for you to use would be like if I really respected Mao Zedong and think that he unified China and everyday people say shit about him and post online pictures about him and say he is a shit eater stinking yellow pig or something like that right? I took your question literally. Later on I realized you're basically trying to ask me what I think about people insulting Mohammed if I was Muslim. Am I right? If this is your question I can see your point and answer it easily. Just ask. I don't want to make this post any longer if my guess is wrong.

The short answer is living people have and dead people get different treatment from me. See lah. I try to keep this short and clear now so many paragraphs.

As I said before, freedom of speech, very few people understand. The version that all the angmohs like to say on tv or social media is actually wrong. The one sinkies like to parrot is lagi wrong.

Like i said not every country as develop as sinkieland or USA or the West. U want to talk to them about Law? Of course we are educated, we try to be calm. But i mentioned before ifeveryone are calm, there wont be crimes, no need SPF, no need prison...list goes on lah..

Certain thing i dont agree but i can remain calm. But if u started insulting someone i dearly love then i cant remain quiet. Of course here i can sue u or report u to police. Tats why u see in sinkieland calm and no protest. Respecting each other religion. All these freedom of speech are just being hypocratical. I already mentioned Macron case. Rather inviting unnecessary trouble and giving lawyers business, i rather they stop all these nonsense, imo.

Freedom of speech..again depending on the topic lah. Not every one keen to insult other religion or their parents. Definitely not me. I ask u. If u know this particular is sensitive. Do u go to him directly and insult his mother? Infront of everyone?

 

[syed putra]

it is actually fulfilling it's intended purpose. Abrahamic religions all share this trait.

God in these religions is a red herring. Only used to bait people to deliver political power and $$$. They claim to be the only ones able to deliver god which they have no right nor ownership to. That's how they get the support of the unsuspecting. Make fantastic promises.

Initially, the clerics hold the power and wealth from taxation.( tithe). If the peasant cannot pay taxes, their land were confiscated.
The monarchs knew this so they created their own church and monarchs as head. Church of england a good example.
Same as in Tibet before china invasion. The monks were seizing land and properties of Tibetan people.

 

[syed putra]

The fruits of the mohammedan religion is obvious. Any society that is deeply islamic enough turns out poor, lowly literate, extremely intolerant to other beliefs and even towards more moderate moslems, suffer from poor health and shorter life spans, have and have a seemingly unlimited list of things that others must do in order to respect their mohammedan beliefs.

It wasn't like this initially. Muslim Spain was the wealthiest in Europe due to it's libersl policies. When christian took over, they funded trips to the new world from seized wealth of the moors.
The British became rich by plundering the spanish galleon, snd fundeed their own adventures. The hero of the british was a pirate sir Francis drake.
Muslims started getting poor after reverting to just one book for answers.