Thousands of Muslims gather outside Downing Street over Charlie Hebdo cartoonists - Polidicks

[QUOTE=darth-veger;47112013] I have yet to hear about something like that but for Muslims. My point is not that muslims are not doing anything good on this world but in general Christians have a more straight thought of helping others, its what you learn from the bible and it is what the Church keeps teaching.[/QUOTE] You literally know nothing about Islam then. Muslims are [I]required[/I] to give upwards of 5% of their wealth to the poor if they are stable.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;47112013]There are a shitload of Christian charity events that i know of which did a great impact on me, examples are the [URL="http://www.the4thmusketeer.uk/"]4th Musketeers[/URL] and [URL="http://www.doorbrekers.nl/"]Doorbrekers[/URL]. I have yet to hear about something like that but for Muslims. My point is not that muslims are not doing anything good on this world but in general Christians have a more straight thought of helping others, its what you learn from the bible and it is what the Church keeps teaching. I do not have a lot of knowledge on how muslims work nor what the quran exactly states but so far that is my experience with christians.[/QUOTE] Charity is actually the third most basic principle of Islam, it's actually right up there with monotheism and Mohammed's status as a prophet in terms of significance. Failure to provide some amount of charity, when you are able to do so, is considered apostasy, and the celebration of the majority of Muslim holidays involves giving to the poor. I'd highly advise that you do some looking into on basic practices and teachings of Islam, from an unbiased source, knowledge is almost invariably the enemy of hatred.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47112071]How exactly is this protesting free speech? They're protesting the statement made, not Charlie Hebdo's right to make it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't get it. Someone publishes images that are offensive to Muslims, and that's free speech, but Muslims protesting it is [i]against[/i] free speech? Free speech doesn't guarantee that everyone has to like what you're freely saying. They're not trying to get Charlie Hebdo banned through the legal system, they're protesting the publication. They are exercising their right to free speech to express their disapproval of someone else's exercise of free speech. Supporting free speech is not synonymous with supporting Charlie Hebdo, despite the way the media has been presenting it since the attack.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112207]They're protesting the publication. They are exercising their right to free speech to express their disapproval of someone else's exercise of free speech.[/QUOTE] Logical leap.

[QUOTE=BloodRayne;47110588]I challanged him for saying all 700 people were racist. Islam is not a race and opposing it does not make me or anyone with logical thought a racist you are the ignorant peice of shit. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - OvB))[/highlight][/QUOTE] so this is flaming, but the person who said the exact same thing to him, unprovoked, wasn't flaming. boy does facepunch choose its mods perfectly.

[QUOTE=uber.;47112287]Logical leap.[/QUOTE] The bit you quoted isn't making an argument, it's restating facts. A public protest is an exercise of free speech. Releasing an offensive publication is an exercise of free speech. So a public protest towards an offensive publication is an exercise of free speech directed towards an exercise of free speech, with the aim of convincing the publishers to stop by their own free will, not through legal means or intimidation. This is a free society working as it should to resolve its differences, and yet people are calling it an 'attack on free speech' because the media circus around Charlie Hebdo has turned it into 'either you support Charlie Hebdo on every street corner or you hate free speech'. Which is absurd.

[QUOTE=darth-veger;47111786]People keep telling me to just deal and accept Islam but i have rarely heard any positive news. I also get nervous as fuck around my muslim friends since they start looking pissed at me when i say [I]anything[/I] related to their religion, of course i have a handful of chill muslims who don't give a shit about it but still. Someone printed a picture of mohammed on my school, it was a picture where he was hand in hand with Jesus with the text "No war, only peace" or something like that and 3 muslim kids just went fucking mad and smashed the computer along with the printer causing about 1300 euro of a damage which they refused to cough up.[/QUOTE] I dont think its muslims, I think you are just afraid of brown people in general lmao

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47111283]Frankly it is a terrible religion. Why is it most of FP feels wholly comfortable with shitting on christianity, but go "ooo aah" when someone criticizes the oppressive and backwards aspects of Islam that are not only present in the ideology but also practiced by the majority of the countries it is dominant in? I can only think its because christianity is associated with being white (ignorantly so) while practicing Islam is associated with being a ~~minority~~ (again, ignorantly so) and therefore above any reproach or criticism. Most of the world is [B]sane[/B], friend. You don't have to be neurologically damaged to practice oppressive belief systems or commit acts of violence as an extension of the will of your preferred deity.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. It's hilarious because Christianity is a Palestinian religion, and I don't even think it's a white majority religion anymore. But because Western liberals are blinded by their own experience in Western countries, Christianity = white oppression and so attacks on it are justified, while Islam = minorities so it cannot be questioned. This is why it's also funny to see that ex-Muslim atheists from Muslim majority countries are actually the most "Islamophobic" (speak critically of Islam) people out there, because they have experienced Islamic oppression firsthand for most of their lives. Just imagine this: if you're an Iraqi Christian, how outrageous would it sound for a White European to come up and tell you that Islam is an oppressed religion?

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112326]The bit you quoted isn't making an argument, it's restating facts. A public protest is an exercise of free speech. Releasing an offensive publication is an exercise of free speech. So a public protest towards an offensive publication is an exercise of free speech directed towards an exercise of free speech, with the aim of convincing the publishers to stop by their own free will, not through legal means or intimidation. This is a free society working as it should to resolve its differences, and yet people are calling it an 'attack on free speech' because the media circus around Charlie Hebdo has turned it into 'either you support Charlie Hebdo on every street corner or you hate free speech'. Which is absurd.[/QUOTE] Or maybe they're calling it an attack on free speech because there are people holding signs literally saying: [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10032939.ece/alternates/w460/britain-first-muslims-protest-london-5.jpg]"To insult is NOT freedom"[/url] [url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/08/257833EA00000578-2944946-Muslims_gathered_for_prayers_and_to_hear_speeches_during_the_ral-a-67_1423424848849.jpg]"Freedom of speech = Hatred to Muslims"[/url] [url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/08/2577F14B00000578-2944946-Men_and_women_were_kept_separate_during_the_protest_out_of_respe-a-24_1423433935399.jpg]"Absolute freedom of speech - no such thing!"[/url] [I]Technically[/I] the last one is correct, but it's in regard to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater or actively threatening someone, not drawing a picture someone perceives as an insult. And I do like the people holding up the signs saying "Learn some manners". It's just so nice, simple, and straightforward compared to the other signs.

[QUOTE=Last or First;47112614]Or maybe they're calling it an attack on free speech because there are people holding signs literally saying: [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10032939.ece/alternates/w460/britain-first-muslims-protest-london-5.jpg]"To insult is NOT freedom"[/url] [url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/08/257833EA00000578-2944946-Muslims_gathered_for_prayers_and_to_hear_speeches_during_the_ral-a-67_1423424848849.jpg]"Freedom of speech = Hatred to Muslims"[/url] [url=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/08/2577F14B00000578-2944946-Men_and_women_were_kept_separate_during_the_protest_out_of_respe-a-24_1423433935399.jpg]"Absolute freedom of speech - no such thing!"[/url] [I]Technically[/I] the last one is correct, but it's in regard to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater or actively threatening someone, not drawing a picture someone perceives as an insult. And I do like the people holding up the signs saying "Learn some manners". It's just so nice, simple, and straightforward compared to the other signs.[/QUOTE] Wow they're holding up signs with that fucked up Pope Francis quote.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112326]The bit you quoted isn't making an argument, it's restating facts. A public protest is an exercise of free speech. Releasing an offensive publication is an exercise of free speech. So a public protest towards an offensive publication is an exercise of free speech directed towards an exercise of free speech, with the aim of convincing the publishers to stop by their own free will, not through legal means or intimidation. This is a free society working as it should to resolve its differences, and yet people are calling it an 'attack on free speech' because the media circus around Charlie Hebdo has turned it into 'either you support Charlie Hebdo on every street corner or you hate free speech'. Which is absurd.[/QUOTE] They're not voicing their disapproval they ask for removal of satire. And this really shouldn't be up for debate, anyway. I get sick to my stomach when I see people talking about respect and then demand censorship. We make fun of politicians, hobbies, companies and ideologies but religions are off-limit?

[QUOTE=Last or First;47112614]Or maybe they're calling it an attack on free speech because there are people holding signs literally saying: [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10032939.ece/alternates/w460/britain-first-muslims-protest-london-5.jpg"]"To insult is NOT freedom"[/URL] [URL="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/08/257833EA00000578-2944946-Muslims_gathered_for_prayers_and_to_hear_speeches_during_the_ral-a-67_1423424848849.jpg"]"Freedom of speech = Hatred to Muslims"[/URL] [URL="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/08/2577F14B00000578-2944946-Men_and_women_were_kept_separate_during_the_protest_out_of_respe-a-24_1423433935399.jpg"]"Absolute freedom of speech - no such thing!"[/URL] [I]Technically[/I] the last one is correct, but it's in regard to shouting fire in a crowded movie theater or actively threatening someone, not drawing a picture someone perceives as an insult. And I do like the people holding up the signs saying "Learn some manners". It's just so nice, simple, and straightforward compared to the other signs.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=uber.;47112693]They're not voicing their disapproval they ask for removal of satire. And this really shouldn't be up for debate, anyway. I get sick to my stomach when I see people talking about respect and then demand censorship. We make fun of politicians, hobbies, companies and ideologies but religions are off-limit?[/QUOTE] Until someone starts going through courts or Parliament to restrict the publication of Charlie Hebdo in the UK, or restricting its distribution, it's not censorship, just words, also known as free speech. For the hell of it, I looked up the Muslim Action Forum, the URL listed on that 'to insult is NOT freedom' sign. [URL="http://www.muslimactionforum.com/declaration.php"]Here's their declaration[/URL]. It is literally saying that freedom of speech shouldn't be curbed through laws, it should be used with respect: [quote]The social fabric of society has never been governed by laws and regulations but has been enacted through reflections of creed and conscience. Given the tensions of modern society there is a dire need for individuals and communities to exercise responsibility and sensitivity in their social conduct. [/quote] They even have the section on free speech from the European Convention on Human Rights on their site. This is a peaceable protest calling for people to be mindful of their speech rather than be edgy and offensive simply because they can. I see nothing here that's against free speech beyond narrow interpretations of pithy signs. You are free to disagree with them and hold the opinion that all speech, no matter how offensive, should be respected, but this is a conflict of opinion, not censorship. Telling a business that they're being insensitive and should be more polite is social pressure, but it's not censorship by any meaningful definition of the word.

[QUOTE=uber.;47112693]They're not voicing their disapproval they ask for removal of satire. And this really shouldn't be up for debate, anyway. I get sick to my stomach when I see people talking about respect and then demand censorship. We make fun of politicians, hobbies, companies and ideologies but religions are off-limit?[/QUOTE] No, the whole thing started because people were free to make fun of religion. People are still free to make fun of religion and they do so. How is not allowing them to voice their frustrations not in the spirit of free speech?

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112721]Until someone starts going through courts or Parliament to restrict the publication of Charlie Hebdo in the UK, or restricting its distribution, it's not censorship, just words, also known as free speech. For the hell of it, I looked up the Muslim Action Forum, the URL listed on that 'to insult is NOT freedom' sign. [URL="http://www.muslimactionforum.com/declaration.php"]Here's their declaration[/URL]. It is literally saying that freedom of speech shouldn't be curbed through laws, it should be used with respect: They even have the section on free speech from the European Convention on Human Rights on their site. This is a peaceable protest calling for people to be mindful of their speech rather than be edgy and offensive simply because they can. I see nothing here that's against free speech beyond narrow interpretations of pithy signs. You are free to disagree with them and hold the opinion that all speech, no matter how offensive, should be respected, but this is a conflict of opinion, not censorship. Telling a business that they're being insensitive and should be more polite is social pressure, but it's not censorship by any meaningful definition of the word.[/QUOTE] So the Colbert Report and Daily Show are examples of misuse of free speech because they're disrespectful.

Is not buying Charlie Hebdo an attack against free speech, knowing full well that without enough readers they won't have enough money to run the magazine any more? Is trying to organise other people to do the same (boycotting) an attack against free speech? If you get enough people to care about an issue and follow your lead, causing the bankruptcy of the magazine have you curtailed free speech? Or is it the responsibility of everyone to support every cause just in the name of free speech (which isn't even free speech since there is no government intervention as catbarf mentioned over and over again)? Why is peacefully voicing your disagreement with something (whatever the reason for your disagreement) wrong?

Satire leaves no stone unturned. Religion doesn't get an exemption.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47112762]So the Colbert Report and Daily Show are examples of misuse of free speech because they're disrespectful.[/QUOTE] If you want to stop watching Colbert Report and Daily Show because you feel they're disrespectful, knock yourself out. If you want to go protest with other people expressing the same opinion, that's your right. If you want to ask those studios to stop being offensive, you can do that. If they tell you no, that's their right too. This is free speech. This is how a democratic society works. If something offends you, you can talk about it, you can protest, you can ask the creators to change their minds. It only becomes censorship when you start applying legal or political pressure to [i]force[/i] them to stop, rather than of their own volition.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112779]It only becomes censorship when you start applying legal or [B]political [/B]pressure to [i]force[/i] them to stop[/QUOTE] Honestly I feel this is where the protestors interests lie, they're just using the means they have.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112779]If you want to stop watching Colbert Report and Daily Show because you feel they're disrespectful, knock yourself out. If you want to go protest with other people expressing the same opinion, that's your right. If you want to ask those studios to stop being offensive, you can do that. If they tell you no, that's their right too. This is free speech. This is how a democratic society works. If something offends you, you can talk about it, you can protest, you can ask the creators to change their minds. It only becomes censorship when you start applying legal or political pressure to [i]force[/i] them to stop, rather than of their own volition.[/QUOTE] I agree but I have to disagree with the statement that "free speech should be used with respect," because that statement makes no sense on its face. Almost any speech is by definition going to be offensive to someone else.

Not meaning to offend anyone or cause any kind of disturbance but: Can someone explain to me why muslims are like that? I mean: Case: Magazine office gets attacked in a violent manner, people killed. Outcome: Twitter blows up with many (NOT all, BUT many) supporting those terrorists? who did it. Many of course are against that of what happened and feel sorry for it. Case: World kind of unites a bit and more cartoons appear. Outcome: These protests happen. Say something about muslim religion, you are getting a violent backlash (from personal experience), and often they are very aggressive towards other people. Yet many of those who are protecting religion - don't even follow things like ramadan, basically they adopt religion to themselves when it's advantageous to them and drop/deny it when it's not advantageous to them. I mean some of these actions go directly against each other without any logic. Why so? is it the way muslim families raise their children or being told something as they grow up? I am genuinely interested as to why there is such difference between muslim religious people and others.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112721]Until someone starts going through courts or Parliament to restrict the publication of Charlie Hebdo in the UK, or restricting its distribution, it's not censorship, just words, also known as free speech. For the hell of it, I looked up the Muslim Action Forum, the URL listed on that 'to insult is NOT freedom' sign. [URL="http://www.muslimactionforum.com/declaration.php"]Here's their declaration[/URL]. It is literally saying that freedom of speech shouldn't be curbed through laws, it should be used with respect:[/QUOTE] Stop bringing up the legal aspect. You did so in the first post and now you did it again and there is literally no reason to do so. We have a group of people who protest [B]against the public release[/B] of satire because they feel offended. Their protest is linked to a demand. [QUOTE=Fetret;47112738]No, the whole thing started because people were free to make fun of religion. People are still free to make fun of religion and they do so. How is not allowing them to voice their frustrations not in the spirit of free speech?[/QUOTE] It's not in the spirit of free speech when you tell others to remove their satire because you feel offended. It would be in the spirit of free speech to tell others that you feel their satire is unfair and it offends you but at the same time still support their right to publish it.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47112721]Until someone starts going through courts or Parliament to restrict the publication of Charlie Hebdo in the UK, or restricting its distribution, it's not censorship, just words, also known as free speech. For the hell of it, I looked up the Muslim Action Forum, the URL listed on that 'to insult is NOT freedom' sign. [URL="http://www.muslimactionforum.com/declaration.php"]Here's their declaration[/URL]. It is literally saying that freedom of speech shouldn't be curbed through laws, it should be used with respect: They even have the section on free speech from the European Convention on Human Rights on their site. This is a peaceable protest calling for people to be mindful of their speech rather than be edgy and offensive simply because they can. I see nothing here that's against free speech beyond narrow interpretations of pithy signs. You are free to disagree with them and hold the opinion that all speech, no matter how offensive, should be respected, but this is a conflict of opinion, not censorship. Telling a business that they're being insensitive and should be more polite is social pressure, but it's not censorship by any meaningful definition of the word.[/QUOTE] So, they're holding signs saying "FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS HATRED" and "FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM", then there's fine print on the signs that's a website link that you have to go to where they have a section saying "Note: freedom of speech is absolutely fine, but we believe that depicting Muhammad should be filed under the likes of 'inciting racial hatred' restrictions". What a roundabout way to say your point. Why not just have signs saying "Depictions of Muhammad should count as inciting violence!" rather than "Freedom of speech is bad!" and "I love Muhammad THIIIIIIIIIIS much!" so they get their point across better? Sure, it gets more attention to say they hate freedom of speech, but in turn it will make people think that they, you guessed it, hate freedom of speech. Again, I like the "Learn some manners" signs. Everyone there should be holding signs like that. Especially if they don't actually want to get rid of freedom of speech.

Maybe people should just not get aggro over a picture.

As long as they aren't being violent, let them protest. They have the right to be offended and express their feelings, and we have the right to not give a shit about it. Most people (or at least most of the people I know) understands that you should be able to make fun of everything, religion included.

[QUOTE=KinderBueno;47112811]Not meaning to offend anyone or cause any kind of disturbance but: Can someone explain to me why muslims are like that? I mean: Case: Magazine office gets attacked in a violent manner, people killed. Outcome: Twitter blows up with many (NOT all, BUT many) supporting those terrorists? who did it. Many of course are against that of what happened and feel sorry for it. Case: World kind of unites a bit and more cartoons appear. Outcome: These protests happen. Say something about muslim religion, you are getting a violent backlash (from personal experience), and often they are very aggressive towards other people. Yet many of those who are protecting religion - don't even follow things like ramadan, basically they adopt religion to themselves when it's advantageous to them and drop/deny it when it's not advantageous to them. I mean some of these actions go directly against each other without any logic. Why so? is it the way muslim families raise their children or being told something as they grow up? I am genuinely interested as to why there is such difference between muslim religious people and others.[/QUOTE] For some immigrants, getting defensive about Islam seems to stem from a desire to get back at their host countries for the hostilities they perceive and to forge a sense of identity rather than "pure" religious zeal. If I can compare it to anything else, I'd say it's similar to the ghetto mentality.

[QUOTE=Explosions;47112802]I agree but I have to disagree with the statement that "free speech should be used with respect," because that statement makes no sense on its face. Almost any speech is by definition going to be offensive to someone else.[/QUOTE] That's your opinion. It's one I tend to agree with. The Muslim Action Forum seems overly concerned with respect. As an atheist I feel that religion, or any long-standing institution for that matter, should not be exempt from criticism, while the MAF seems to feel that their beliefs should be respected. And that's [i]their right[/i]. And they have the right to express it. And it's not an attack on free speech for them to say 'hey, we'd appreciate it if you didn't do things that offend us' in public. I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they're oppressing me or my right to free speech. Asking me to consider their feelings when I express my rights is not an infringement on those rights. Let me turn this around: If there were a rally where thousands of people gathered to protest a company distributing ISIS propaganda, I strongly doubt people would call that protest an attack on free speech. I strongly doubt that the sentiment 'you have a legal right to publish that, but it's harmful and we would appreciate if you didn't' would be considered demanding censorship. And I very strongly doubt that anyone would be saying 'you're opposing free speech if you're not explicitly saying it's okay for this to be published while you criticize it'. It's not against free speech to say that you personally feel something shouldn't be released, it's censorship if you use legal, economic, or political pressure to make sure it doesn't exist. [QUOTE=uber.;47112908]Stop bringing up the legal aspect. You did so in the first post and now you did it again and there is literally no reason to do so. We have a group of people who protest [B]against the public release[/B] of satire because they feel offended. Their protest is linked to a demand. [/QUOTE] I keep bringing it up because it's relevant, because you said they demand censorship. If it's a demand, it has no teeth. There are no consequences for Charlie Hebdo saying no. They're not being compelled in any way, explicit or implicit. There are no threats. It is absolutely nothing more than an expression of personal opinion on the part of the protesters. [QUOTE=uber.;47112908]It would be in the spirit of free speech to tell others that you feel their satire is unfair and it offends you but at the same time still support their right to publish it.[/QUOTE] You mean like the protesters' website saying laws shouldn't restrict the right to free speech, but it still can be ethically wrong? What more do you want? Do you require a little 'btw I totally support your publishing of this offensive content even though I personally feel you shouldn't do it' disclaimer on every sign or something? If I say I find Mein Kampf offensive I shouldn't have to immediately follow up with 'but you have every right to publish it if you want!' in the same breath. Your standards here seem unreasonable.

[QUOTE=Fetret;47112738]No, the whole thing started because people were free to make fun of religion. People are still free to make fun of religion and they do so. How is not allowing them to voice their frustrations not in the spirit of free speech?[/QUOTE] They are attacking freedom of speech which is a western value. Fundamentally they are attacking france and rhe uk and are demanding action against it. There is a difference between using freedom of speech to state something and demand something and what they are demanding is to silent other peoples freedom of speech to criticise their religion. If something cannot be criticised then you end up with a dictatorship and not a democracy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47113137]You mean like the protesters' website saying laws shouldn't restrict the right to free speech, but it still can be ethically wrong? What more do you want? Do you require a little 'btw I totally support your publishing of this offensive content even though I personally feel you shouldn't do it' disclaimer on every sign or something?[/QUOTE] Okay, just so I get this right. You're asking the same people, who literally are against publishing satire, to put up a sign that says they're in favor of publishing satire?

[QUOTE=uber.;47112908] It's not in the spirit of free speech when you tell others to remove their satire because you feel offended. It would be in the spirit of free speech to tell others that you feel their satire is unfair and it offends you but at the same time still support their right to publish it.[/QUOTE] Says who? Why is it against free speech (whatever your definition of it is) to tell someone to remove their work? The creator can then decide whether to go along with that request or not, depending on the strength of the response. I hardly think Charlie Hebdo will back down after the massive march in support of them. Why is it that you telling these protestors that they cannot protest not against free speech then? As I brought it up before in this thread, would you consider organising a boycott against content you disagree with (non-violently convincing other people to not buy the magazine for example) an attack against free speech, since getting enough people on your side would effectively end the content? If your answer is yes, then I have a follow-up question, do you believe "supporting their right to publish" means you have to buy the magazine as well? [editline]10th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Arrows;47113192]They are attacking freedom of speech which is a western value. Fundamentally they are attacking france and rhe uk and are demanding action against it. There is a difference between using freedom of speech to state something and demand something and what they are demanding is to silent other peoples freedom of speech to criticise their religion. If something cannot be criticised then you end up with a dictatorship and not a democracy.[/QUOTE] No, something not being criticised has no bearing on ending up with democracy or dictatorship, stop throwing politically charged, irrelevant words to justify your point. My point was religion can be satirised as you can see from multitude of Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Religion is not and was not off-limits. Has anything changed in the past couple of months that suddenly made using religion as satirical material illegal? No, if anything it was more satirised than ever straight after the attacks.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47112176]You literally know nothing about Islam then. Muslims are [I]required[/I] to give upwards of 5% of their wealth to the poor if they are stable.[/QUOTE] Right because they ALL do that right? [editline]10th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CrucialSeBBi;47112340]I dont think its muslims, I think you are just afraid of brown people in general lmao[/QUOTE] You're the worst kind of poster.