• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Terror -- The Uk's New Christmas export

Grant said:
What??? There were dozens of people killed by ravenous Muslims, millions of dollars in damage done and Muslims are still trying to bomb the newspaper and kill the cartoonist and you are saying that both groups are as bad as each other? Drawing cartoons is the same as murdering dozens of people? This is moral equivalence taken to the ultimate degree and is a form of mass insanity. This is an incredible statement to make and feeds right into the hands of Islamic extremists everywhere.


Like whom? There are aws are on the books saying that speech must be responsible, and that includes slander and libel laws,


How novel! But of course no one was shouting fire anywhere and there was no crowded theaters It was a cartoon, and thousands of them appear every day.



MMM, yes. Who would have thought! Well we have to always be on the alert for someone shouting fire in a crowded theater, mustn't we?
Click to expand...

So we've come full circle again have we? Muslims = Islamists = extremists.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
As you've raised the point in this thread I will assume that I can respond to it in here albeit with an element of sarcasm, irony and a huge shrug of my shoulders.

Jewishophobia as in antisemitism which the liberal left are accused of constantly throughout this forum; it does get tiresome doesn't it.
Click to expand...

No, Jewishophobia is, like Islamophobia, directed against a religion and culture. Antisemitism is directed against a race of people.

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

You should leave the attempts at sarcasm and irony to those more adept than your good self.
 
alexa said:
I have?
Click to expand...

According to one of those documents you send me to read, yes you did, If you don't agree with what you submitted then there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

What is this me moderate? Nah, people who don't know me tend to think I am maybe a bit eccentric from the outside. Moderate, no I just am.
Click to expand...

OK , You are not a moderate. I'll leave that up to you.

I would never justify the stoning of women anytime. I am a woman.
Click to expand...

I would never justify the stoning of women either, and I am a man. But I also wouldn't refer to the Bible in an 'attempt to defend the practice today.


You have totally got this wrong. RoP gave a literalistic quote from the Koran (at least I only have him to go by that it was real) Given that he did this when talking about Muslims who do not use the Koran in a literalistic way and simply to be offensive, I simply showed him that if someone wished they could do exactly the same with the Bible. By doing that I was showing him that that was treating a Christian in exactly the same way as he was treating traditional Muslims.
Click to expand...

Actually I have it right. Muslims are still stoning women today, Christians are not. And if Christians tried to do such a thing they wouldn't quote the Koran in an attempt to justify such practice..

The fact that I did a search for stoning was simply because i remembered it because I know it is not in the Koran.
Click to expand...

Good for the Koran.
Click to expand...
 
William Rea said:
So we've come full circle again have we? Muslims = Islamists = extremists.
Click to expand...

Have we? Where did i say that?

If someone is reading these posts to you, you should have them replaced with someone more familiar with the English language.
 
I only have him to go by that it was real
Click to expand...

On that ticket I only have your word for it that the Biblical references to stoning exist. And for all your insults and moralising, you still haven't told me how to read the unambiguous words of Koran 9:29! (Laila can't either as she clams up every time I ask!)

Read any Koran you like. It's in there. You can't hide from it and I flatter myself that I don't let people.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
No, Jewishophobia is, like Islamophobia, directed against a religion and culture. Antisemitism is directed against a race of people.

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

You should leave the attempts at sarcasm and irony to those more adept than your good self.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Grant said:
According to one of those documents you send me to read, yes you did, If you don't agree with what you submitted then there seems to have been a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Give me a link to the document so that I can see what they are saying.

Grant said:
I would never justify the stoning of women either, and I am a man. But I also wouldn't refer to the Bible in an 'attempt to defend the practice today.
Click to expand...

That was not what I did. I will try again. Despite being told that Traditional Muslims did not interpret the Koran in a literalistic way, RoP gave a quote from the Koran and claimed they believed what the quote from the Koran said. Clearly this was nonsense. I showed him this by giving some quotes from the Bible and explaining to him that if he believed that all Muslims believed every quote in the Koran, that would be like saying all Christians believed everything in the Bible. I could have chosen many things. There are piles and piles of gruesome stuff in the Bible. I looked for a quick topic and stoning came to mind. Must admit it came up more often than I thought.

Really it is a case of if you cannot take muck then do not throw it.

Grant said:
Actually I have it right. Muslims are still stoning women today, Christians are not. And if Christians tried to do such a thing they wouldn't quote the Koran in an attempt to justify such practice..
Click to expand...
I know that some bastards are stoning women today. However you fail to understand what is going on, if you believe that that is all Muslims. When I was a child, I don't think anywhere stoned women, anywhere. Now there is an outside chance that Saudi Arabia did, but I don't think even they did. So this has all happened since I was a child and as I said earlier related to politics. If you are not prepared to study the politics the conclusions you come to will be way off mark.





Grant said:
Good for the Koran.
Click to expand...

It is indeed interesting. I have heard many different stories about early Islam. Many of them extremely positive.
 
William Rea said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sometimes putting words togther as you have above doesn't work.
In this very case in fact.

Because the definition of Islamophobia is NOT "inexplicable/illogical fear" of Muslims or their ideology. Rather, using the same source/Websters:
It's:
"1. prejudice against Muslims." :::: with No 'fear' mentioned.

Islamophobia is one of the most poorly designed and abused words in existence.
Critics of an ideology (Islam) aren't phobic, nor even necessarily 'prejudiced'.
Yet routinely people who criticize Islam are called Islamophobes.

Also defying your Attempted logic and put down of Grant, is the word 'anti-semite', which is against only One small group of Semites .. Jews. Not others.

And for Grant, the term of art for Jewishphobia is Judeophobia.
Definition of judeophobia
Even if it's not in Websters ... yet.
 
Last edited:
alexa said:
Give me a link to the document so that I can see what they are saying.
Click to expand...

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/executive-summary-cheering-for-osama.pdf

That was not what I did. I will try again. Despite being told that Traditional Muslims did not interpret the Koran in a literalistic way, RoP gave a quote from the Koran and claimed they believed what the quote from the Koran said. Clearly this was nonsense. I showed him this by giving some quotes from the Bible and explaining to him that if he believed that all Muslims believed every quote in the Koran, that would be like saying all Christians believed everything in the Bible. I could have chosen many things. There are piles and piles of gruesome stuff in the Bible. I looked for a quick topic and stoning came to mind. Must admit it came up more often than I thought.

Really it is a case of if you cannot take muck then do not throw it.
Click to expand...

Where was I throwing muck? It is common nowledge that Muslims are stoniing women and girls today. Why is pointing that out "muck"?
I know that some bastards are stoning women today. However you fail to understand what is going on, if you believe that that is all Muslims.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it is all Muslims and I don't believe anyone does.
When I was a child, I don't think anywhere stoned women, anywhere. Now there is an outside chance that Saudi Arabia did, but I don't think even they did. So this has all happened since I was a child and as I said earlier related to politics. If you are not prepared to study the politics the conclusions you come to will be way off mark.
Click to expand...

So Muslims are stoning women because of politics but I won;t understand the reasons why unless I understand the politics.

Frankly, Alexa, I could not care less about their goofy politics, or even their backward religion.. What I do care in the mindless violence that is so often associated with islam. That's about it.
It is indeed interesting. I have heard many different stories about early Islam. Many of them extremely positive.
Click to expand...

Sure.
Click to expand...
 
RoP gave a quote from the Koran and claimed they believed what the quote from the Koran said.
Click to expand...

No, I gave just one political quote from the Koran in reply to your claim that Islam isn't political. I also added links to papers outling how Islam is indeed political. Then you suddenly started talking about the Bible.

And 'traditional' Muslims can be anyone - Sunnis (including Wahhabis in that respect), Shias, you name it. Just pick a group that can go way back to Muhammad's death when his gangleader henchmen fought amongst themselves for the succession.


______________________________

A reminder on what Muslims think: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#post1059192551

Even Moderate Muslims take the Koran as the final word of God: unfiltered, unchanged and unchangeable.
This Supremacy Complex inhibits us from asking hard questions about what happens when faith becomes dogma.
Such a path can lead only to a dead end of More Violence...
Click to expand...

For liberals and leftists, moderate Muslims are the 'real' Muslims.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
-- Blaming the IRA on the Americans now? How very European!
Click to expand...

The fact you tried to twist my words says a lot for you. I wouldn't insult Canadians by saying "how very Canadian" for your individual behaviour for catching you in yet another lie.

Grant said:
--But in fact ex pat Irish were gathering money for 'widows and orphans' all over the world, including here in Canada..
Click to expand...

If I call you liar I get threadbanned... I'm talking about NORAID and other such groups, I'm also talking about how some Irish terrorist groups escaped being labelled as "terrorist" by the US and CIA for many years while they created "widows" and "orphans" over in the UK.

Grant said:
-- This rather flies in the face of your statement to me that "Speaking as someone who did a tour of duty in Northern Ireland in the 80's you are completely wrong in your assumption that some people didn't view "all Irish" as terrorists".
Click to expand...

It doesn't if you read it properly. :lamo

Grant said:
-- Hardly! In fact it was just too easy to refute the anti American denials as any of the Americans involved at the time can tell you. The Lefty Brits don't mention their feelings about Americans as much these days because it seems they've learned their lesson now that the Americans have begun to respond.
Click to expand...

There's very few left-wing Brits on the BBC "Have your say" forums, there are however quite a few right wing posters, many of whom "fly close to the wire" - so again, I doubt your honesty here.

Grant said:
-- I've watched one of the greatest countries in the world decay into irrelevance but there is not any anger. It's just trying to blame everything on the Americans on your way down, as you just did with the Irish, that I find pitiful.
Click to expand...

Bare faced cheek, and again if I told it as I see it, I would be threadbanned.

Grant said:
-- you'll still be railing away at the Americans when the Muslim call to prayer is ringing in your years --
Click to expand...

My position on the US is clear and I have stated it before. The UK and europe owe the US a huge debt (well, we paid our lend lease off) for WW1 and WW2. We have also however put ourselves in harms way with the US when it was right (and unfortunately when it was wrong), we got shafted over Suez and I believe Europe needs to learn to stand on its own feet. I have no hatred for America - whatever you think, however our politicians sell themselves and our country short when it comes to dealings with the US.

The UK does business with China, Europe and Africa and we have trading partners around the world that we would do better to cultivate. I'll still add India even though RoP fails to see the long term picture of Indian economic development.

Paint that whichever way you wish - I don't see that as hatred or "railing."

Grant said:
-- You're already picking up the Muslim habit of saying people "hate" you when any slight is perceived, or that they have "Anglophobia" like "Islamophobia". The process has already begun. At one time no real Brit would have ever complained like that. Only among the Leftists do you here this mournful whine about everyone hating you.
Click to expand...

I'm simply asking why you are so hot and bothered about the UK. You then spin my words completely out of context and create something new from it. Have fun if that floats your boat - I can't be bothered correcting deliberate lies and misinterpretation.
 
Grant said:
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/executive-summary-cheering-for-osama.pdf
Click to expand...

No, I said nothing about moderate being or not being able to do anything. I gave the link for a quote I gave, that being

the Salafist and Wahhabi understanding of Islam is not
a historically recognised school of Sunni jurisprudence. This practice limits what is seen as
authoritative knowledge on religious matters to this small Wahhabi group, based on the belief that
they alone have the correct creed and methodology to accurately interpret scripture.
Click to expand...

However it appears I gave you the link to the Exec summary, the link I should have given was this one

http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/images/stories/pdfs/cheering-for-osama.pdf

However it remains that I said nothing about 'moderate' Muslims being powerless and nor did that report.


Grant said:
Where was I throwing muck? It is common nowledge that Muslims are stoniing women and girls today. Why is pointing that out "muck"?
Click to expand...

I notice from IC replies to you that you appear to have a habit of playing games and mixing things up for fun. I am sorry you are so bored and are doing it again.


Grant said:
No, I don't think it is all Muslims and I don't believe anyone does.
Click to expand...

Clearly ROP does as he is unable to be able to differentiate between different Muslims even when he has just been told. You show a similar inability to differentiate and just use the term 'Muslim' rather than putting things into the proper setting. I accept it is lack of knowledge. I just do not understand people who wish to continue on and one with the same ignorance.

Grant said:
So Muslims are stoning women because of politics but I won;t understand the reasons why unless I understand the politics.

Frankly, Alexa, I could not care less about their goofy politics, or even their backward religion.. What I do care in the mindless violence that is so often associated with islam. That's about it.
Click to expand...

Frankly Grant I do not have time for your silly little meaningless time wasting posts.
 
Clearly ROP does as he is unable to be able to differentiate between different Muslims even when he has just been told.
Click to expand...

Lie.

And Grant's right, it is not all Muslims perpetuating evil. 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.
 
Republic_Of_Public said:
Lie.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm not surprised you just say 'lie' with nothing to back it up. You were more honest in this post.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-28.html#post1059191890

Republic_Of_Public said:
And Grant's right, it is not all Muslims perpetuating evil. 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.
Click to expand...

well holy moses you are admitting not all Muslims are perpetuating evil. That is a good soul but it has SFA to do with what this is about. Despite being told you continuously assert that Muslims are all literalist and are all wanting Islamist States with Sharia law. You even say

You either read the words in a book literally or disregard the printed meaning in favour of fantasies.
Click to expand...
as your sure evidence

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#post1059192683

It is impossible to talk with people who refuse to look at reality. How many democracies with a Muslim majority have elected an Islamist government?
 
That is a good soul but it has SFA to do with what this is about.
Click to expand...

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 were more honest in this post.
Click to expand...

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.



Despite being told you continuously assert that Muslims are all literalist and are all wanting Islamist States with Sharia law.
Click to expand...

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). 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.

And as for 'telling' me, you did no such thing! For the third time of asking, how should I interpret Koran 9:29?




How many democracies with a Muslim majority have elected an Islamist government?
Click to expand...

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.....


Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast - washingtonpost.com

Adulterers face death by stoning in Indonesia - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Removed for legal reasons: Wife-beating allowed under sharia law, UAE court rules | World news | guardian.co.uk

Photographs To Help Explain Why There Are No Homosexuals In Iran [Content Warning: Graphic Photos] (Updated: Video Added) | Mere Rhetoricr
 
Last edited:
Republic_Of_Public said:
Human decency I like to think. And I'm far from the only one. And although a few other Christians accept the blood and thunder of the Old Testament as their guide, it's still true that such a rump of people have no state apparatus to impose their will (unlike affairs across the Muslim world, the very latest Muslim nation to legislate for stoning being Indonesia).

Plus, it's still true that the later teachings of Jesus Christ are held up as the definitive words of the religion's prophet and it's still true that islam is still stuck with its 'unchangeable' Koran and Hadith whilst Christianity has been reformed to the point where revisionist hippies can run a church.

No real cherry-picking there, unless I'm delving for nuggets of truth.





Intersesting to see another insult from Ms. Hysterical again. Interesting approach to debate from the liberal-left there, just like the posts where you called me 'sick' and 'nauseous' in intellectual response!

And when did mentioning the Crusades equate to having feelings for it one way or another? By that logic every historian in the land would have backed the General Strike, Hitler's Blitzkreig and the social revolution of the 1960s just because they mention them!







You love the 'h' word. You'd marry it if you could. You use it with reckless abandon and I'm the one with the cliches!
Click to expand...

Westerners and Christians in particular have no reason to apologise for the Crusades. The Crusaders were taking back nations and land that was swallowed up by and/or conquered by Imperialist Islam. Mass migration is being used to today to attempt to conquer the US - but WE ARE ONTO THEM AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Crusaders were not taking lands that did not originally belong to them to begin with.
As for the Christian relgion, Jesus said that if you "Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and strength" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" one would fulfill the "Whole of the Law". Christianiy is all about love and forgiveness; even for your enemies, (a practise which I find quite difficult, depending on the situation). (Oh! Big shock! Christians do not practise pedophilia or homicide or any of the things Mo pracised, as a rule. There are always lone nutjobs out there who might commit some heinous act "in the name of God" but they are not representative of Christianity.) It is quite hard for me to forgive Islamists who execute MY BRETHREN and the Jews, who NEVER did anything harmful to the bloodthirsty pagan moon-god 'prophet' of phony baloney Islam or the islamists themselves. The worst thing they did was to reject Mo as a prophet. ALL OF THE REAL PROPHETS WERE HEBREW.
Christians and Jews have morals, and everything about baby-raping, Jew and Christian murdering, mysogynistic and anti-humanitarian Mohammed goes against EVERYTHING our God teaches us. What Islam considers normative is criminal in our western societies! (And not just forbidden by Christianity or Judaism.)
America may have a Muslim-in-Chief in the White House, but we have MANY men (My personal favourite Congressman Allen West who studied Islam and fought them in the Gulf War and Afghanistan) who understand and can see through the taqiyya that CAIR is feeding the USA. I particularly feel bad for the blacks that are recruited out of prisons; they have no idea that in islamic nations they are considered useful ONLY for slavery and sodomy. So much for executing gays! I don't understand why this is done when their culture is steeped in sodomy, man on man AND on women too.
There will be NO dhimmitude coming out of the USA. Any islamist reading here might as well give it up, because it is NOT about to happen. We did not shed so much blood on battelfields to have OUR freedoms taken away by the likes of you.
As for Obama, I would not want to be in his shoes. He might as well have a giant bulls-eye painted on his back.
 
julietsm said:
Westerners and Christians in particular have no reason to apologise for the Crusades. The Crusaders were taking back nations and land that was swallowed up by and/or conquered by Imperialist Islam. Mass migration is being used to today to attempt to conquer the US - but WE ARE ONTO THEM AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Crusaders were not taking lands that did not originally belong to them to begin with.
As for the Christian relgion, Jesus said that if you "Love the Lord your God with all your heart soul and strength" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" one would fulfill the "Whole of the Law". Christianiy is all about love and forgiveness; even for your enemies, (a practise which I find quite difficult, depending on the situation). (Oh! Big shock! Christians do not practise pedophilia or homicide or any of the things Mo pracised, as a rule. There are always lone nutjobs out there who might commit some heinous act "in the name of God" but they are not representative of Christianity.) It is quite hard for me to forgive Islamists who execute MY BRETHREN and the Jews, who NEVER did anything harmful to the bloodthirsty pagan moon-god 'prophet' of phony baloney Islam or the islamists themselves. The worst thing they did was to reject Mo as a prophet. ALL OF THE REAL PROPHETS WERE HEBREW.
Christians and Jews have morals, and everything about baby-raping, Jew and Christian murdering, mysogynistic and anti-humanitarian Mohammed goes against EVERYTHING our God teaches us. What Islam considers normative is criminal in our western societies! (And not just forbidden by Christianity or Judaism.)
America may have a Muslim-in-Chief in the White House, but we have MANY men (My personal favourite Congressman Allen West who studied Islam and fought them in the Gulf War and Afghanistan) who understand and can see through the taqiyya that CAIR is feeding the USA. I particularly feel bad for the blacks that are recruited out of prisons; they have no idea that in islamic nations they are considered useful ONLY for slavery and sodomy. So much for executing gays! I don't understand why this is done when their culture is steeped in sodomy, man on man AND on women too.
There will be NO dhimmitude coming out of the USA. Any islamist reading here might as well give it up, because it is NOT about to happen. We did not shed so much blood on battelfields to have OUR freedoms taken away by the likes of you.
As for Obama, I would not want to be in his shoes. He might as well have a giant bulls-eye painted on his back.
Click to expand...

You know, if the accepted social practice around here is to tolerate this kind of blind, seething, pointless hate, we may as well rename the place "Stormfront Lite."

Seriously.
 
alexa said:
No, I said nothing about moderate being or not being able to do anything. I gave the link for a quote I gave, that being
However it appears I gave you the link to the Exec summary, the link I should have given was this one
Click to expand...

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.

However it remains that I said nothing about 'moderate' Muslims being powerless and nor did that report.
Click to expand...

I just quoted that report which pointed out the difficulties "moderates" were having. Where are you going with this?
I notice from IC replies to you that you appear to have a habit of playing games and mixing things up for fun. I am sorry you are so bored and are doing it again.
Click to expand...

I've mixed up nothing. I am using quotes.


Clearly ROP does as he is unable to be able to differentiate between different Muslims even when he has just been told. You show a similar inability to differentiate and just use the term 'Muslim' rather than putting things into the proper setting. I accept it is lack of knowledge. I just do not understand people who wish to continue on and one with the same ignorance.
Click to expand...

LOL!!
Frankly Grant I do not have time for your silly little meaningless time wasting posts.
Click to expand...

Saints be praised!
Click to expand...
 
alexa said:
I am not an adherent of any of those religions but I would not be in favour of banning them which I think possibly you have been discussing with Arcana. That is definitely repressive and would in any case just result in a lot of undercover Christians and so on. Better out in the open. and if we started banning religion, what next - people who have this opinion or that.
Click to expand...

I just want to clarify that William is most definitely not the person advocating banning religions in this thread. He and I seem to have very similar views on the place of religion in society and limiting freedom of religion in any way is not what he's about at all.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
The fact you tried to twist my words says a lot for you. I wouldn't insult Canadians by saying "how very Canadian" for your individual behaviour for catching you in yet another lie.
Click to expand...

Which words did i twist and where is the lie??

If I call you liar I get threadbanned... I'm talking about NORAID and other such groups,
Click to expand...

If you called me a liar you'd be seen as a fool. And if you are talking of NORAID why not say so?

I'm also talking about how some Irish terrorist groups escaped being labelled as "terrorist" by the US and CIA for many years while they created "widows" and "orphans" over in the UK.
Click to expand...

Then you must be grateful that the US, after so many generations, finally solved your problems.

It doesn't if you read it properly. :lamo
Click to expand...

Oh. by adding "some"? Do we really need to go back once again and rehash your earlier posts?

There's very few left-wing Brits on the BBC "Have your say" forums, there are however quite a few right wing posters, many of whom "fly close to the wire" - so again, I doubt your honesty here.
Click to expand...

You're a left wing European. What more need be said?

Bare faced cheek, and again if I told it as I see it, I would be threadbanned.
Click to expand...

"Bare faced cheek"?? LOL!! What a hoot you Eurolefties are! And the British lefties are among the most precious!


My position on the US is clear and I have stated it before.
Click to expand...

I must have missed it.

The UK and europe owe the US a huge debt
Click to expand...

They also owe Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc. You'll never be able to pay any of those countries back, and that includes the United States.

(well, we paid our lend lease off) for WW1 and WW2.
Click to expand...

And about bloody time! And at rates anyone would envy! What about all the lives lost? Have you paid that back yet?
We have also however put ourselves in harms way with the US when it was right (and unfortunately when it was wrong),
Click to expand...

And when was that? Many Canadians died each hour in European wars and now the Brits moan and whine when they lose one soldier a week. How can you ever be taken seriously?

we got shafted over Suez
Click to expand...

The Brits were not to be trusted further, and it remains obvious why this is so.
and I believe Europe needs to learn to stand on its own feet
Click to expand...

And what are the odds of that ever happening? There is no will in Europe.

I have no hatred for America - whatever you think,
Click to expand...

A collective sigh of relief was just heard from the lower 48.
however our politicians sell themselves and our country short when it comes to dealings with the US.
Click to expand...

Then you should elect smarter politicians, like the Americans do
The UK does business with China, Europe and Africa and we have trading partners around the world that we would do better to cultivate.
Click to expand...

Sure! Go for it! What's stopping you?
I'll still add India even though RoP fails to see the long term picture of Indian economic development.
Click to expand...

Yes, you do that.

Paint that whichever way you wish - I don't see that as hatred or "railing."
Click to expand...

Yes, quite.
I'm simply asking why you are so hot and bothered about the UK.
Click to expand...

Actually it's the UK left I find to be ridiculous, and far too numerous. The rest are ok.
You then spin my words completely out of context and create something new from it.
Click to expand...

I am using quotes!
Have fun if that floats your boat - I can't be bothered correcting deliberate lies and misinterpretation.
Click to expand...

Again, why not point out any lies.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
William Rea said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, William Rea, and I was wrong!
 
Arcana XV said:
You may find the clarification tiresome, but it needs to be made.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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. :lol:


How about Islamic Radical, or Islamic Extremist, or Islamic Jihadist? All are being used and all mean much the same thing.
Click to expand...

All work for me.

I really don't give a stuff what Muslims think any more than I care what any ideological group thinks.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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'..
Click to expand...

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? :lol: 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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...


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/87827-terror-uks-new-christmas-export-31.html#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)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom