Yet some in the west think we should "get along". The problem with this is that "get along" depends on tactic. While nearly 7 billion people will never agree, when people suggest political correctness to avoid offending any label, including atheists, shit like this proves my point. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are also entitled to offend me. But you are not entitled to harm others merely because they "offend" you. Otherwise the jackasses who think women are property would be right in this very inhuman act.

Any belief that claims that "they deserved it" merely because of gender, OR ANY LABEL FOR THAT MATTER, deserves the loudest and strongest condemnation.

If anyone deserves punishment, it would be the ass backwards pricks who did this.

At the risk of inflaming our leftwingers, I think this is the country that should have been targeted after 9/11 and should be the focus of complete international isolation. Pakistan comes second by the merest whisker.

Having said this, it's quite obvious Islam's real victims are its female followers, detractors and powerless minorities. Muslim men behave like pathetic, threatened schoolboys.

Captain Pineapple is right. Women control us through their ankles and the curves of their necks. Evolutionarily, it makes perfect sense that human females would advertise their fertility and attractiveness and encourage us to impress them.

Why these human fundamentals are such a problem I cannot tell. 

According to my most radicalised muslim buddy, me being shocked by cases like that is due to western culture being too "feminised".

Lets not make this about gender roles by calling them school boys. It is true that they use religion to keep women down, but so has Christianity in America's history.

What makes them wrong, is not their penis. What makes them wrong is their bad use of logic rooted in myth.

I was taking a PE class in college where we went bowling, a female beat me. She put herself down by saying, "It sucks to be beaten by a girl doesn't it"? I thought to myself, "No, it sucks to be beaten" She knocked down more pins than I did, her vagina and my penis didn't change the outcome.

THAT is the delusion they suffer from, I don't think it is wise to play into that by calling them "school boys". It is certainly backwards insecurity rooted in myth that causes it, but it should not be about their gender, but their bad logic that causes them to be stuck in gender roles.

Muslim men ARE insecure bullies in that context, but it is not their sex that causes it, it is their history of religious delusion that causes it. They treat men of other sects and other religions in the same minority manor they do women.

I look at it this way. If a EMT is a woman or gay or black or Christian or Muslim, and they save my life, why should I give a shit what their belief is or what is between their legs?

Same thing if a female police officer stops someone from assaulting me. Why should I care what is between someone's legs as long as they are protecting me?

I would have loved to have someone like Xena Warrior Princess as a girlfriend in high school when the jocks picked on me.

I wish humanity would get beyond gender and labels and sexuality. Of course there are differences, but just like life, there are no absolutes and everything is pointing to being a range.

So when someone says, "you fight like a girl" I would say, which one because some "girls" can kick my ass. I don't think losing to females in a sport or in life is anything to be ashamed of. If you lose at something, or someone does better than you at something, it just means you lost, it doesn't make them better at all things, and it doesn't make you bad for losing. It just means you can learn from the experience.

I get labeled left winger often enough, I might as well respond.  Unless "left" is different in OZ than in the US.

Here, it would be the "right" who supported GW Bush and Co that might be upset about invading Iraq.  Most of us lefties would jump on your bandwagon.  Iraq was never a problem, let alone the source of this problem, it was Saudis that brought the planes down for the most part.  It never made any sense to invade Iraq. 

The supposed document - that was later revealed to be believed by the CIA before the invasion as a fraud - that demonstrated Iraq buying weapon grade uranium read like a badly worded rip off of the hoary Nigerian scam emails.

There were no WMA, never were any WMA, and what little biological and chemical weapons Iraq did have were pathetic.  On top of which, as should have been by now clearly demonstrated, the only person keeping Iraq from being torn apart by religious fanatics was the secular regime of a hard nose dictator.

And anyone who believed the bull pucky about overthrowing Saddam Hussein taking only a few months and a mere - what did GW say again? - yeah, $73 million US - really should have their head examined.

And back to the OP - right, I'm sure men go crazy and start frantically masturbating when I walk down the street in jeans and sweater.  </sarcasm>

What you are saying here. I do have my worries, but there's nothing muslims do that the puritans/catholics of the 1500s would not have cheerfully undertaken given similar hardware. Still. The world is different now and so is the balance of influence.

Voices of dissent in Islamic nations are crushed leaving a poisoning doctrine formenting in its holy places unbridled by reason or respect for individual rights. There used to be 25 per cent other religions in Pakistan, now it's 3 per cent. Where did the others go? Then there are those stories of massacres of christians in Turkey during WW2. What was it? 2 million murdered? I'm quoting from memory so question it if you like.

I wouldn't live in a muslim majority country and the idea of living in a country with even ten per cent muslims is odious to me in the extreme. To put this in context, I would not be able to handle a religious nation of the sort that existed anywhere in Europe 300-400 years ago. As soon as I saw some one burned at the stake or branded for blasphemy I'd turn.

  That is fucking rediculous! Yeah, I wonder where their train of thought comes from.

In some book I read recently some guy - maybe it was the English chemist Boyle or the physician Willis, observed during the 30 years war in France in the mid-1600s that violence achieved nothing and it was best to use soft words and a firm argument. The problem I have with this, however, arrives when the foe is prepared to use whatever means they can to oppress the majority.

What happens when tolerance is on one side only? I guess all we can do is wear the blows and imprison those who act against the civil rights of all as enshrined in our constitutions. A further worry for me is how effective this is when you have a very large un-integrated section of society that refuses to acknowledge the authority of the elected government as taking precedence over their violent sky fairy. What then?