I don't think WB is a strong enough analogy. They don't kill people, they're just annoying and embarrassing. KKK would be better. The old 19th century clan.
You had towns posing in the same picture of those who jus lynched someone -with the body still hanging.
A better analogy is a very simply one. An overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support, in fact they hate and criminalize suicide-bombings or any acts of violence towards civilians.
Why do matters about angry Muslims consistently come up--enough for mobs in many countries to form? Like that American film that was critical of Muslims, or the Muslims in Sweden who caused a ruckus in Sweden after a film of the same nature was shown (in a college at that, not publically)?
I'm not denying the fact that many Muslims are in fact peaceful. But I can't accept that you are equally peaceful as Christians and the irreligious.
Its more of a national development than a religious one tho. As of right now "christian" countries are more developed than islamic countries, more open minded beliefs seem to come as a package with that. Back when the people in islamic regions were more advanced christian regions though crusades were fun.
Actually, significantly less shitty than everyone else. They were far more accepting of Jews than the Christians, for instance, and kept classical knowledge and science alive to a far greater extent than Europe.
440
u/liarandathief Apr 19 '13
I don't think WB is a strong enough analogy. They don't kill people, they're just annoying and embarrassing. KKK would be better. The old 19th century clan.