Page 38 of 71 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 705

Thread: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

  1. #371
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-27-17 @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,412

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post

    Nor diid i accuse you of any such thing.. I was making the point that in the broader context it is the charges of that ridiculous word "Islamophobia" or the tiresome "not all Muslims are terrorists" that are often the responses to Islamic criticism. This is juvenile, but it also appears to be effective, along with physical threats, in silencing the media in some cases.
    You may find the clarification tiresome, but it needs to be made. As you've pointed out repeatedly, Muslims now have to deal with the damaged reputation the Islamic terrorists have brought on their community. We're not doing the majority of Muslims any favors by constantly bringing them by default into the debate when discussing Islamic terrorism. I'm very careful what words I use in these threads. You'll never see me use the word "Muslim" when what I actually mean is "Islamic terrorist". The word Muslim is simply too general a term for me and does not accurately convey my meaning. I try to avoid using words that will muddy my argument and will generate unnecessary posts filled with silly accusations and demands for clarification. It's a total and complete waste of time and I have too much respect for most posters here to play these sort of games with them. It's pointless and counter-productive.

    As for Islamophobia, I don't think I've ever used that word. I don't particularly like it much as I'm not exactly sure what it means exactly. It is fast becoming as irrelevant and ineffective as "anti-semite" or "racist" in forums such as these. It is used to try and shame the opposition into silence and, again, I will not play these infantile word games.


    No one is making threats or claiming Christianophobia or Jewishphobia when Christians Jews are criticized, or even when they are murdered for no reason apart from them being Chrsitian or Jewish.
    For the most part, Christians are actually very good at dealing with the mud thrown at them. They will discuss whatever issue at hand without trying to silence their opponent with made up words. I wish I could say the same when it comes to discussing either Israel or the Jewish people. I recommend you spend some time in the Middle East forum, if you can stomach it for longer than 5 minutes. I've long given up on participating there. I refuse to spend 50 pages dodging the constant accusations of anti-semitism, rather than actually discussing the OP. You may fit in there better than I did, who knows? It's definitely an interesting study on how important the words we use in this forums are, though.

    I think, like the poster you're referring to, that the anti islamic feeling is bound to grow. No matter how liberal the west might try to be, their patience against constant accusations of intolerance and "Islamophobia" will eventually reach the boiling point. Things cannot continue this way, no matter how much we may want it all to work out well. And, by the way, i'm only an observer in all of this.
    I agree, but regardless of how bad it gets, banning religions or abridging freedom of speech is something I will never, ever support. There is NO excuse for doing either. Not ever.

    I shared that attitude once but now feel that a clash is inevitable beginning, of course, in Europe. I don't see militant Islam quitting any time soon and, as Alexa has pointed out, the 'moderate' Muslims are largely powerless.
    What an odd notion. When it comes to combating terrorism, moderate Muslims are in exactly the same boat we are. We're all in this together. They are as much a target of Islamic terrorism as we are, if not more. So if they are "powerless", then so are we.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  2. #372
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Quote Originally Posted by William Rea View Post
    Merriam-Webster is I believe considered to be an authorative dictionary so taking their definitions...

    1. Definition of ANTI-SEMITISM
    : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

    2. Definition of JEWISH
    : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew

    3. Definition of PHOBIA
    : an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

    As Jewish is defined as "of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews..." I would guess that Jewishophobia would be averse to the characteristics of Jews. The characteristics of Jewishness being as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

    I could have respected your argument if you had said that antisemitism was being against Jews while Jewishophobia was an irrational fear of Jews but, you didn't make that argument?
    You are absolutely right, William Rea, and I was wrong!

  3. #373
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcana XV View Post
    You may find the clarification tiresome, but it needs to be made.
    Why is that?

    As you've pointed out repeatedly, Muslims now have to deal with the damaged reputation the Islamic terrorists have brought on their community. We're not doing the majority of Muslims any favors by constantly bringing them by default into the debate when discussing Islamic terrorism. I'm very careful what words I use in these threads.
    So you feel that by constantly repeating the phrase "not all Muslims are terrorists" that we will then be doing the majority of Muslims a favour? I don't think so. I don't want to sugarcoat this at all, or change the language around, any more than I would with any other group. But if you and those who chose too repeat "not all Muslims are terrorists" after every Islamic terrorist act perhaps we can shorten it to NAMAT, much as they use PBUH. I'll get the ball rolling in fact, when the next atrocity is committed.
    You'll never see me use the word "Muslim" when what I actually mean is "Islamic terrorist".
    How about Islamic Radical, or Islamic Extremist, or Islamic Jihadist? All are being used and all mean much the same thing. I really don't give a stuff what Muslims think any more than I care what any ideological group thinks. If people believe a particular thing I can be critical, amused, or bewildered, but I don't have to worry about semantics or tread lightly when they're creating mayhem throughout the world. They should get their act together rather than seeking any undeserved respect or pity.
    The word Muslim is simply too general a term for me and does not accurately convey my meaning. I try to avoid using words that will muddy my argument and will generate unnecessary posts filled with silly accusations and demands for clarification. It's a total and complete waste of time and I have too much respect for most posters here to play these sort of games with them. It's pointless and counter-productive.
    The term Muslim is quite specific. The fact that the name has become sullied has more to do with Muslims behaving badly rather than any other factor. Perhaps you can explain why any religion is worthy of our respect rather than having them earn that respect? It's not clear to me why I should have any respect for Muslims, per se, despite the clear possibility that I might respect them as individuals. But being a Muslim is not special any more than being an Episcopalian is special.
    As for Islamophobia, I don't think I've ever used that word. I don't particularly like it much as I'm not exactly sure what it means exactly. It is fast becoming as irrelevant and ineffective as "anti-semite" or "racist" in forums such as these. It is used to try and shame the opposition into silence and, again, I will not play these infantile word games.
    Well whether you have used it or not is quite beside the point. The fact is that some diddlewits do use it, and in fact you said I was fearful of Muslims, a victim of that dreaded phobia myself. Meanwhile it is you who are concerned about the semantics and fearful of offending 'the majority'..

    For the most part, Christians are actually very good at dealing with the mud thrown at them. They will discuss whatever issue at hand without trying to silence their opponent with made up words.
    You bet. You don't see Christians rioting and murdering over some silly cartoons, but we've come to expect that from Muslims. That's why those cartoons are never reprinted in the mainstream media. In fact the cartoonist who suggested the "Everybody Draw Mohamed Day" has now had to change her identity and go into hiding. And it's Muslim s who are out to kill her. But, NAMAT.

    I wish I could say the same when it comes to discussing either Israel or the Jewish people. I recommend you spend some time in the Middle East forum, if you can stomach it for longer than 5 minutes. I've long given up on participating there. I refuse to spend 50 pages dodging the constant accusations of anti-semitism, rather than actually discussing the OP. You may fit in there better than I did, who knows? It's definitely an interesting study on how important the words we use in this forums are, though.
    I actually have spent some time there and it is disgusting. The most vile are the Left Wing and the Muslims.

    I agree, but regardless of how bad it gets, banning religions or abridging freedom of speech is something I will never, ever support. There is NO excuse for doing either. Not ever.
    I don't want to ban any speech or religion either, which is why I'm not concerned at all about referring to Muslim terrorism. And if it hurts some feelings so what? This "majority" should man up and speak up themselves, if indeed they are the majority.

    What an odd notion. When it comes to combating terrorism, moderate Muslims are in exactly the same boat we are. We're all in this together. They are as much a target of Islamic terrorism as we are, if not more. So if they are "powerless", then so are we.
    The majority of Muslims, of which you speak, has been silent too long. They have become irrelevant to the debate. You are right that they are getting killed as well as the rest but, despite being the majority, they have made little progress in curtailing Islamic aggression. I usually see them blaming others for the violence and divide than accepting any responsibility themselves or their backward religion.

    But, lest I'm being too harsh in calling Islam "backward", perhaps you can explain to me what good Islam has ever done the world or its adherents? I don't think Muslims, as a group, are deserving of any particular respect.

  4. #374
    Sage
    Arcana XV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Geneva, Switzerland and Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-27-17 @ 09:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,412

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post

    Why is that?
    I don't know about you, but for myself I'm here to talk to people and have an actual conversation. It matters more to me to be properly understood and to have an actual exchange of ideas, than to score meaningless points or to "win". I'm not perfect. I get just as aggravated as the next person with the sillyness, but I only respond in kind to those who deserve it. Everyone else will find that they can have a rational conversation with me even in disagreement. To do that, it's important to me to be as clear as possible in my arguments.

    So you feel that by constantly repeating the phrase "not all Muslims are terrorists" that we will then be doing the majority of Muslims a favour? I don't think so. I don't want to sugarcoat this at all, or change the language around, any more than I would with any other group. But if you and those who chose too repeat "not all Muslims are terrorists" after every Islamic terrorist act perhaps we can shorten it to NAMAT, much as they use PBUH. I'll get the ball rolling in fact, when the next atrocity is committed.
    Knock yourself out. Your debating style is a lot more confrontational than mine. You do what you feel best serves your arguments and I'll keep doing what I'm doing. It works for me and I very rarely get into useless tangents as a result. You seem to enjoy those tangents, so keep on keeping on. Just know that I'll ignore you if you try to play that game with me. Or I'll just let Tommy Lee Jones do the talking for me again.


    How about Islamic Radical, or Islamic Extremist, or Islamic Jihadist? All are being used and all mean much the same thing.
    All work for me.

    I really don't give a stuff what Muslims think any more than I care what any ideological group thinks.
    I do. I find the differences in ideology, culture and society around the world utterly fascinating.

    If people believe a particular thing I can be critical, amused, or bewildered, but I don't have to worry about semantics or tread lightly when they're creating mayhem throughout the world. They should get their act together rather than seeking any undeserved respect or pity.
    Terrorists do not deserve respect nor pity. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. It may have something to do with the fact that you started talking about ordinary Muslims, then immediately jumped to "ideological groups" and "mayhem" and then right back again. See what I mean? Words and presentation are paramount in these sort of discussions. It's okay, though, I think I know what you meant. I just wanted to draw your attention to the way you tried to express what you meant.

    The term Muslim is quite specific. The fact that the name has become sullied has more to do with Muslims behaving badly rather than any other factor. Perhaps you can explain why any religion is worthy of our respect rather than having them earn that respect? It's not clear to me why I should have any respect for Muslims, per se, despite the clear possibility that I might respect them as individuals. But being a Muslim is not special any more than being an Episcopalian is special.
    No one and nothing deserves respect without earning it. I have ZERO respect for religion in general and Islam is no exception. I don't do well with the kind of organized religious brain-washing on the scale history has seen so far. I do however have tons of respect for individual people who happen to be part of a religious community and again Muslims are no exception. My issue is not about respect at all, Grant. My issue is with the way people consciously chose to discuss an issue knowing full well that certain words will set their opponent off and effectively end all manner of coherent debate. This happens in this forum with the Muslim issue, but also in the abortion forum, the Middle East forum and in any thread that discusses gay marriage or gay rights. People just can't seem to help themselves and throw around words that immediately turn the discussion into a "Who can act the most retarded?" contest. It's infinitely tiresome. It really is.


    Well whether you have used it or not is quite beside the point. The fact is that some diddlewits do use it, and in fact you said I was fearful of Muslims, a victim of that dreaded phobia myself. Meanwhile it is you who are concerned about the semantics and fearful of offending 'the majority'..
    Well, you did come across as quite terrified at the time. I do know you better now and realize that is not really the case. I am absolutely not fearful of offending the majority. That's is not what this is about at all. Do you see how difficult it is to get people to understand what one says? It's not the offending I'm concerned with. I'm concerned with the accurate expression of our ideas in order to end up discussing those ideas and not some perverted, distorted beyond recognition view of the original sentiment.

    You bet. You don't see Christians rioting and murdering over some silly cartoons, but we've come to expect that from Muslims. That's why those cartoons are never reprinted in the mainstream media. In fact the cartoonist who suggested the "Everybody Draw Mohamed Day" has now had to change her identity and go into hiding. And it's Muslim s who are out to kill her. But, NAMAT.
    You won't see me disagree on that. Some Muslims, and this time I DO mean Muslims, are generally not very clear on what freedom of speech means. This is doubly true for European Muslims, as the freedom of speech laws here are a joke. The longer they live in the West,though, the better they get at understanding that nothing is sacred for us anymore. It takes time. Those rioters you saw on the news are primarily first generation immigrants.

    I actually have spent some time there and it is disgusting. The most vile are the Left Wing and the Muslims.
    I think they're all repulsive. They have no idea how to talk to each other.

    I don't want to ban any speech or religion either, which is why I'm not concerned at all about referring to Muslim terrorism. And if it hurts some feelings so what? This "majority" should man up and speak up themselves, if indeed they are the majority.

    The majority of Muslims, of which you speak, has been silent too long. They have become irrelevant to the debate. You are right that they are getting killed as well as the rest but, despite being the majority, they have made little progress in curtailing Islamic aggression. I usually see them blaming others for the violence and divide than accepting any responsibility themselves or their backward religion.
    I disagree. I hear moderate Muslims speak out against the radicals every day. Just take a look at the moderate Egyptian press after the Coptic church bombing the other day. Not a single one makes excuses for what happened and every one of them condemned it and called for all Egyptians to unite against terrorism. It's there, Grant. You just chose not to see it. Either that, or your media is hiding things from you. You should ask yourself why they do that.

    But, lest I'm being too harsh in calling Islam "backward", perhaps you can explain to me what good Islam has ever done the world or its adherents? I don't think Muslims, as a group, are deserving of any particular respect.
    You're asking the wrong person. I don't think any major religion has done any good in the world that did not involve furthering its own interests. If you're asking about individual religious people, then some have been truly exceptional. But the group as a whole, no. Not a single one.
    "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke

  5. #375
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    [QUOTE=Grant;1059196036]

    Well, whatever. But the link you gave me said this.

    "1. Findings relating jihadist forums:
    Primary concern is attacking other Muslims
    The primary concern of forum users is to identify traitors and enemies to the Jihadist
    cause. As it goes without saying on Jihadist forums that the US, the UK, Israel and
    other western countries are enemies, much of the forum is focused on identifying
    enemies among people who are outwardly Muslims, for instance, those who
    support ṭāghūt, those who recognize or facilitate ‘un-Islamic systems’, those who
    have ‘abandoned their religion’ etc.
    Absence of real debate
    Compared to general English-language web-forums, Arabic-language Jihadist forums
    are remarkable for their lack of real debate. Instead users aim to create an
    impression of unanimity, with dissenters being kicked off the sites and barred. This
    makes it harder for mainstream Muslims to use the forums to challenge supporters
    of Jihadist ideologies".

    This is what was meant by "moderates" not being able to respond to the Jihadists, and that was in the link you sent. In fact, by quoting this, i was agreeing that the "moderates" were having their difficulties in getting their points across. I was, in other words, supporting the point you were making.

    I just quoted that report which pointed out the difficulties "moderates" were having. Where are you going with this?

    Well you are actually saying where your belief that I had said Muslims were powerless came from. I never did actually say it. An article I provided indicated that strong non jihadist Muslims were not able to present counter arguments on jihadist websites.

    On internet forums these people will find themselves politely banned. In that way it is true that your regular intelligent non jihadist Muslim is powerless over what happens on Internet forums.

    But that had nothing to do with what I had said and does not say that Muslims are Powerless in addressing and combating extremism. In reality far from showing that 'moderate' muslims were powerless, in post 304, I illustrated how in the UK it was traditional Muslims who came to the aid and managed to convince most UK Muslims who had trodden on the slippery path of Salafism that it most certainly was not correct to go off on Jihadists

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...post1059192612

    Indeed there I said that traditional Islam itself in the UK appears to be the greatest antidote to Wahhabism/salafism which by it's literalist interpretation of the Koran etc makes the person much more vulnerable to ideas of terrorism.

    (I have not finished reading that report on Internet terrorism so am do not know what proposals he reached)
    Last edited by alexa; 01-04-11 at 06:43 AM.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  6. #376
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    10-29-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,684

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public View Post
    As part of the vanguard banging on about nothing other than not all Muslims are terrorists or general evil-doers, even on this very topic, that's a bit of a mysterious thing to say.
    You said that not all Muslims were evil doers. I applauded you. However you went on to say
    Though the point to be made is that the evil is endorsed by the religion. Get that and you get the point of the alternate point of view to yours.
    and this is where you go off. Now it is fine to say that evil is endorsed in all these religions, that is Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but to pick out Islam is a straw man.

    That is not to say that some Muslims have not taken to using it in a literalistic way but you need to be able to see that not all Muslims interpret Islam in a literalistic way or wish for their States to be run by Islamic law. It might also help in your understanding of the issues if you were aware that it is Muslims themselves that Islamist Wahhabis and Salafi/Jihaddists go after first. They are considered as much non Muslim as you or I. What we are seeing is an attempt by a nasty brutal breakaway form of Islam coupled with extreme Political writings written when people were being tortured in jail, trying to claim it is Islam....and you appear to believe them....in this way you are unable to see the picture properly.



    Quote Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public View Post
    What's that supposed to prove? Hitler wanted world war but the vast majority of Nazi Party members just wanted to sit back and enjoy their New Germany without butchering anyone. And that included Der Fuhrer's number two Hermann Goering, even though anyone could buy a copy of Mein Kampf and see what Hitler wanted!

    Same with the Muslims and their 'fuhrer' Mohammad's proclaimations in the Koran and Hadith.
    I see we are moving in the direction of the Stormfront posts TED mentions above.



    Quote Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public View Post

    Koran 9:29 is unambiguous. I never said all Musims are literalist, nor did I say that all want Sharia law (though things often end up that way anyhow).
    You may not know the meaning of the word literalistic but when I said that for traditional Muslims, Islam was a religion not a political ideology, you immediately gave a quote from the koran to prove that this was not the case. I pointed out that you were being like the literalistic salafis and wahhabi and that that was no proof that traditional Muslims wanted Islamic states. However you continue with this

    How am I meant to read the literally-put passage of Koran 9:29:

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    You either read the words in a book literally or disregard the printed meaning in favour of fantasies. And the liberal-left haven't been slow at that, hence the 'religion of peace' nonsense in face of all the evidence.



    Islam's political system, consciously established by Muhammad who wrote most of the Koran AFTER he had become 'king' of Mecca, is laid out here:
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...post1059192683 Showing your complete inability to understand and accept new bits of information given to you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public View Post

    As I've said before, I've known older Muslims who had come here to escape their Islamic paradise and get a bit of peace, sanity and democracy.
    Bangaladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysai have all voted non Islamist parties into power. Clearly if all Muslims read the Koran in a literalistic manner this would not be the case. Your belief that due to the Koran Muslims want Islamist states is wrong. When given the choice they usually say no.





    Quote Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public View Post

    What, other than Palestine, Indonesia, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Syria, Iran or any other place instigating the likes of brutal Sharia rule for example? Erm.....
    I will leave people to their own knowledge and understanding to decide what they want to make of this lot. I have a day to live.
    Last edited by alexa; 01-04-11 at 07:28 AM.
    George Monboit "Neoliberalism is inherently incompatible with democracy, as people will always rebel against the austerity and fiscal tyranny it prescribes. Something has to give, and it must be the people. This is the true road to serfdom: disinventing democracy on behalf of the elite."

  7. #377
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 05:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,629

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Came across this picture among dozens more at Reuters Pictures, thought I'd share.

    "True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance." -- Akhenaton
    To understand does not mean to support or to excuse

  8. #378
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-12-11 @ 09:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,922

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    ...no proof that traditional Muslims wanted Islamic states.
    They get what they vote for. And even then in a climate where the democracy given them can seem to mean a lot less.



    ...but to pick out Islam is a straw man.
    I'm happy to repeat that Islam is unique because its exhortation to murder and oppression are the direct words of God via the 'prophet'. Jesus never killed any Jews for example.

    And Christianity is, after scores of reforms, more like what it was in the mind of Jesus before it was taken over by Romans, whilst the Jews have traditionally been victims rather than perpetrators.



    ....you need to be able to see that not all Muslims interpret Islam in a literalistic way or wish for their States to be run by Islamic law.
    Never claimed otherwise. And Muslims are always telling each other they are not the 'proper' Muslims. For all my claimed follies on the Islam issue, my opponents have a grave one in their own tendency to take one Muslim's opinion which fits theirs and set it in concrete.



    I see we are moving in the direction of the Stormfront posts TED mentions above.
    Smear. Hitler was just as bad as Muhammad!


    That's a good link, well worth constant airing I agree.



    Showing your complete inability to understand and accept new bits of information given to you.
    For the fourth time of asking, how do I interpret the literalistically-put Koran 9:29? You don't know do you, hence your propensity for invalidation and insult.




    Bangaladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysai have all voted non Islamist parties into power.
    Pakistan is a brutal Sharia state involved with genocide, with a recent deputation begging the UN to impose Sharia Law across its jurisdiction.

    In Bangla Desh, Muslims there act like the usual wild animals, imposing brutal Sharia and oppressing the likes of the Sikhs, as usual.

    Turkey is only now gradually pulling itself free of the orthodox Islam which led them to kill Christians and oppress non-believers within living memory.

    I mentioned Indonesia myself whilst Malaysia has its own record of Sharia brutality and other Islamic cultural filth.

    It's all in the Koran - the terrorists' and totalitarian sadists' joke book!




    Malaysia considers switch to Islamic law - Telegraph

    Sharia law already operates in some Malaysian states and is occasionally applied to non-Muslims, as in July when Islamic officials forcibly ...

    Sharia Court in Malaysia Sentences Woman to Be Flogged For Drinking a Beer at a Nightclub JONATHAN TURLEY

    Bangladesh: Woman dies after receiving 40 lashes in Sharia punishment - Jihad Watch


    The sharia state of Bangladesh - ShiaChat.com

    The sharia-obsessed holy warriors in Bangladesh killed eight people today with their human exploding drones for Allah. ...

    Islamic states




    Your belief that due to the Koran Muslims want Islamist states is wrong.
    See my previous answers.




    I will leave people to their own knowledge and understanding to decide what they want to make of this lot.
    What, the truth? You asked a question, I answered and now you've run away. And it counters your attitude that Islam is a Religion of Peace and that's that.

  9. #379
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-12-11 @ 09:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,922

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Came across this picture among dozens more at Reuters Pictures, thought I'd share.
    Looks nice enough. What's the news story?

    The picture takes on the appearance of a peace and reconciliation, coming-together thing. Well worth encouraging if there was a serious chance that more and more people across the Muslim world could let human nature over-ride a stone-age religio-political ideology.

    Hard when, for example, 78% of Pakistanis believe Muslims should be killed for 'apostasy'!



    ___________________________


    http://formermuslimsunited.americanc...st-commentary/

    In Pakistan, about 78% to 82% of Muslims want strict sharia, complete with the death penalty for apostasy and stoning to death of adulterers.

    Pew: 78% Pakistani Muslims favour death for apostasy!



    __________________________________________________ __________


    An absolutely CORKING answer from Grant:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...post1059196201

    One for the scrap-book I'd say!
    Last edited by Republic_Of_Public; 01-04-11 at 08:31 AM.

  10. #380
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    07-15-14 @ 05:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,629

    Re: Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic_Of_Public View Post
    Looks nice enough. What's the news story?

    The picture takes on the appearance of a peace and reconciliation, coming-together thing. Well worth encouraging if there was a serious chance that more and more people across the Muslim world could let human nature over-ride a stone-age religio-political ideology.

    Hard when, for example, 78% of Pakistanis believe Muslims should be killed for 'apostasy'!



    ___________________________


    http://formermuslimsunited.americanc...st-commentary/




    Pew: 78% Pakistani Muslims favour death for apostasy!



    __________________________________________________ __________


    An absolutely CORKING answer from Grant:

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe...post1059196201

    One for the scrap-book I'd say!
    The picture shows a Muslim woman protesting against the church biombing in Egypt.
    I come across this kind of images almost daily, but unfortunately I don't see much of it published in the mainstreem media.
    "True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance." -- Akhenaton
    To understand does not mean to support or to excuse

Page 38 of 71 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •