|Re: American Holocaust|
- Friday, July 8 2011, 9:47:39 (UTC)|
from 22.214.171.124 - 74-136-110-21.dhcp.insightbb.com Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
The video I was telling you about was removed from youtube for some reason so I searched elsewhere but couldn't find it. I came across another one which has 11 parts and it was called "is Islam a religion of peace" but I found that one boring. It didn't help that Ramadan was banned from the US for many years and itw as his first time back in a long time and he seemed kind of cautious with his speaking. But when I watched the other debate which I think was in London, gave it to Hitchens pretty good. This Hitchens guy is a propagandist and is totally hypocritical. He attacks religion because of violence yet is a huge supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He went out of his way to mention a Shiite mosque that was supposedly blown up by Sunnis, yet says nothing about the violence and sanctions which killed millions of Iraqis. He said where was the condemnation by Sunnis for the Shiite mosque attacks, but he doesn't wonder why this only happened after the US came.
If i had a chance to speak with him or debate him, the first thing I would ask him is to prove to me that Sunnis attacked the mosques. He also needs to explain why Muslims never destroyed each others' mosques. Muslims didn't even destroy Hindu temples, churches, synagogues let alone their own mosques. Sure there have been small battles fought between teh two groups in the early days of Islamic history but they weren't big. For the most part, Shiites and Sunnis have at least gotten along. In my time with Islam, I noticed that most who hated Shiites were uneducated Muslims from both groups. I used to hate Shiites thanks to the Salafi influence on me at first but I never even heard them call for violence against them. They would condemn shiites as heretics but would leave it at that.
I would also ask Hitchens why this Sunni vs Shiite violence only started during the recent wars when the US came and not before. We are told many bad things about Saddam and his treatments of Shiites in Iraq but that isn't all that true. He allowed them to practice their faith. His circle consisted of both Sunnis and Shiites and he also had Christians and others. I know Shiites and Sunnis married in Iraq and lived together with tolerance. Hitchens then says that a civil war has broken out in Iraq between the two groups and he pretends to believe the US wants to stop it. Who would benefit from chaos and civil war, Iraqis or the US? The answer is obvious.
I would then ask demand an explanation as to how Islam was so tolerant in Spain, India, Ottoman Empire and the many other parts of the world if it called for "butchering" all non-Muslims. How did Islam achieve a global community if it were violent and called for killing. It's hard for me to take this joker serious when I know that he justifies the violence committed against Natives and other dark skinned people. He can't be so caring about Shiites and Sunnis when he supports the wars and justifies violence himself. He seems to just single out Islam because of his prejudices. The reason so many athiests and Christians clap and get an erection from his is because they are also racists and he strokes their balls.
I look up to Tariq Ali more because he is someone who knows Islam, studied, came from that culture and is not a believer. Hitchens is just a bigot and no different from a Pat Robertson or George W Bush.
The full topic:|
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:126.96.36.199) Gecko/20110614 AskTbGAM1/188.8.131.5249 Firefox/3.6.18