This Week's Evil Islam Thread

[Louis VI the Fat]

Lessons of Hate at Islamic Schools in Britain

LONDON — A British network of more than 40 part-time Islamic schools and clubs with 5,000 students has been teaching from a Saudi Arabian government curriculum that contains anti-Semitic and homophobic views, including a textbook (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/textbooks/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) that asks children to list the “reprehensible” qualities of Jews, according to a BBC documentary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm) broadcast on Monday.

The 30-minute “Panorama” program quoted the Saudi government-supplied textbook as saying that Jews “looked like monkeys and pigs,” and that Zionists set out to achieve “world domination.” The program quoted a separate part of the curriculum — for children as young as 6 — saying that someone who is not a believer in Islam at death would be condemned to “hellfire.”

The program said the textbooks had been obtained by an “undercover” Saudi Arabian researcher who asked for them during a visit to one of the Saudi-backed schools and clubs, which meet in the evenings and on weekends in a network that is linked to the cultural bureau of the Saudi Embassy in London.

On Monday, the embassy did not respond to requests for comment, but Saudi officials quoted by the BBC (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/british_broadcasting_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) disavowed direct responsibility for the schools and clubs and described the teachings cited in the program as having been “taken out of their historical context.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/world/europe/23britain.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Feurope%2Findex.jsonp
Dear oh dear..




Europe's next generation learns important skills to compete in an increasingly competitive world, such as the exact place where to amputate limbs:


https://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9492/britainpopup.jpg




My favourite bit is the grasp these schools have of indoctrination techniques, such as presenting the variants of the same viewpoint as different viewpoints. 'Stoning or the cliff'? - that'll teach those students critical thinking!




One of the textbooks, according to the BBC program, prescribed execution as the penalty for gay sex, and outlined differing viewpoints as to whether death should be by stoning, immolation by fire or throwing offenders off a cliff.

[Andres]

The positive part of the story:


someone who is not a believer in Islam at death would be condemned to “hellfire.”


:jumping: I can live in sin for my entire life and still have 72 virgins in the afterlife :cheerleader:

All I have to do is be converted to Islam on my dead bed. To be on the safe side, while I'll be at it, I'd better confess all my sins to a Catholic priest as well.

[Fragony]

You just got to respect that, gutmensch knows it simply isn't true :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

It should be policy that all adults involved with this and are foreign nationals are immediately fined and then deported. Those with a dual passport loose their UK passport. All are banned for life.

There are many places in the globe this poison is allowed. The UK should not be one of them.

Of course what will happen is basically... nothing. A few will be closed down and re-open elsewhere. The Saudis will shuffle their feet a bit and mumble some drivel about how it wasn't their fault and not even their books... OK, they were their books but they didn't know... OK, they did know but it was a mistake... OK, it was intentional but enough time has dragged by for no one to care any more. Perhaps some consular staff will be shuffled around.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

All I have to do is be converted to Islam on my dead bed. To be on the safe side, while I'll be at it, I'd better confess all my sins to a Catholic priest as well. Good points.

Better to err on the safe side and turn religious. I've got it all worked out: I'll convert to Islam right before I die, to get my 72 virgins. But first, I'm going to repent for my sins right now, make confession, and become a Catholic priest. So I can have my 72 virgins in this life too.



All kidding aside, with schools like this it's no wonder Europe keeps breeding homegrown terrorists. As coincidence would have it, right now as we speak, a massive coordinated police operation is happening in Belgium:


A number of arrests have been made in connection with a suspected plot to carry out a terrorist attack in Belgium, regional media report.
Police in the Belgian city of Antwerp detained several people "planning an attack", Belgium's HLN website says.

Ten people were picked up Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, according to French news agency AFP.
.

[gaelic cowboy]

Good points.

Better to err on the safe side and turn religious. I've got it all worked out: I'll convert to Islam right before I die, to get my 72 virgins. But first, I'm going to repent for my sins right now, make confession, and become a Catholic priest. So I can have my 72 virgins in this life too.



All kidding aside, with schools like this it's no wonder Europe keeps breeding homegrown terrorists. As coincidence would have it, right now as we speak, a massive coordinated police operation is happening in Belgium:
.

But I dont like raisins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5) can I change it to potatoes instead.


Scholars have long pointed out that these images are clearly drawn pictures and must have been inspired by the art of painting. Muhammad, or whoever is responsible for the descriptions, may well have seen Christian miniatures or mosaics representing the gardens of paradise and has interpreted the figures of angels rather literally as those of young men and young women. A further textual influence on the imagery found in the Koran is the work of Ephrem the Syrian [306-373 CE], Hymns on Paradise, written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect and the language of Eastern Christianity, and a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew and Arabic.


Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

[al Roumi]

You just got to respect that, gutmensch knows it simply isn't true :laugh4:

This is clearly unacceptable. [Edit: to be clear, I don't mean your post, rather the subject of the thread!]

I admit my first thought was "lets keep this in perpective", but 5000 students is a lot of people to poison with this rot. My google fu has failed me in finding (recent) statistics on independant faith schools in Britain. It would be interesting to know how big a chunk of the independant Islamic sector this represents. I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

Re the Saudis, I can quite imagine that this does have nothing to do with the Saudi government, it's most likely to be some sort of charity. Plus, the Saudis govt is really only bothered about what happens at home and not so much about the country's non-petroleum based exports.

[rory_20_uk]

OFSTEAD has no clout over out of school activities, so they're pretty much free to do what they want. It is hardly going to get onto the Police's radar as it is "merely" indoctrination rather than anything else. In all seriousness, it falls best under MI5's purview as it is a long term, strategic problem, rather than here and now.

I think that the percentage is irrelevant. All involved should be shipped off. If that's one person then so be it. If it's 2,000 involved then equally get rid of them. Just to be clear: I am against the content, not the religion. If there are any Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Jedis doing this then they should get the same treatment.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

You need to licence your own Imams and print there books for them with plenty unannounced inspections to ensure there not teaching Islamofacism.

Deportation does not seem to me to be a solution at all not that these loons should not be sent home but what if the fella is an English convert.

[Fragony]

This is clearly unacceptable. [Edit: to be clear, I don't mean your post, rather the subject of the thread!]

I admit my first thought was "lets keep this in perpective", but 5000 students is a lot of people to poison with this rot. My google fu has failed me in finding (recent) statistics on independant faith schools in Britain. It would be interesting to know how big a chunk of the independant Islamic sector this represents. I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

Re the Saudis, I can quite imagine that this does have nothing to do with the Saudi government, it's most likely to be some sort of charity. Plus, the Saudis govt is really only bothered about what happens at home and not so much about the country's non-petroleum based exports.

Hard to get numbers because of a loop in British law, they can't inspect these schools as they are privately funded.

[Fragony]

Little update on arrests, they discussed their plan on internet these are just mountaingoats who misjumped their mountain.

[al Roumi]

I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

Also, the powers used to actually address this now are probably those free-speech limiting "incitement to hatred and violence" ones...

[Fragony]

Also, the powers used to actually address this now are probably those free-speech limiting "incitement to hatred and violence" ones...

Well these powers are simply the word populist, or anything else that calls you morally inferior. Most muslims are really nice people and it matters nothing to me that they are a bit intolerant from a Dutch perspective. But this goes way beyond my tolerance. I also don't think they really want this.

[HoreTore]

Europe finally has a school that is teaching something other than liberal hogwash, and the conservatives are mad about it....?

[Fragony]

That's not clever that's an ultra-conservative reflex.

[Ironside]

I must say that in thier very finite wisdom, they are teaching those students some important lessons further down the road. The ones following this bile can, if they work hard enough, first teach their targets and then themself of what being on the recieving sides of the words pruning, purge, pogrom means. :bomb2:

Fanatism really does turn off some of the higher brain functions.

Deportation or at least kicking those teachers out of the school and better control on what is teached at private school is desperatly needed.

[HoreTore]

I must say that in thier very finite wisdom, they are teaching those students some important lessons further down the road. The ones following this bile can, if they work hard enough, first teach their targets and then themself of what being on the recieving sides of the words pruning, purge, pogrom means. :bomb2:

Fanatism really does turn off some of the higher brain functions.

Deportation or at least kicking those teachers out of the school and better control on what is teached at private school is desperatly needed.

Missed the point entirely, bro.

Banning private schools altogether is, of course, the only possible way forward. This is far from the only instance of "loony private school"-syndrome, even if it is more graphic than other cases. Stop 'em altogether, they have nothing to offer society.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Instead of scrapping the entire private school system or deporting lots of brown people, maybe we could just regulate these institutions better?

[HoreTore]

Instead of scrapping the entire private school system or deporting lots of brown people, maybe we could just regulate these institutions better?

Why not use that money to make the public school better?

If the christians want a private school where they get to teach that gays go to hell or creationism, I want a school where I can teach students that people of x colour are vermin.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why not use that money to make the public school better?

If the christians want a private school where they get to teach that gays go to hell or creationism, I want a school where I can teach students that people of x colour are vermin.

Don't have a problem with it, same rules as for the rest of society, no calls for direct violence. So long as they can still teach kids the necessary when it comes to reading/writing.

[HoreTore]

Don't have a problem with it, same rules as for the rest of society, no calls for direct violence. So long as they can still teach kids the necessary when it comes to reading/writing.

So, you don't want a school to be in favour of war?

[Fragony]

Why not use that money to make the public school better?

If the christians want a private school where they get to teach that gays go to hell or creationism, I want a school where I can teach students that people of x colour are vermin.

You can honestly not see the difference? Christians don't dehumanise, it's 'want to go to hell well your call', disbelieving is a choice with consequences in death, not life

[al Roumi]

You can honestly not see the difference? Christians don't dehumanise, it's 'want to go to hell well your call', disbelieving is a choice with consequences in death, not life

You do yourelf a dis-service with such a broad post. Are you really saying that ALL Christians have a "live and let live" credo? And conversely, that ALL Muslims are intolerant? Come on...

Also, I think some of y'all non-Brutunculi miss something re the state/independant school issue here. There is a long historic tradition of independant schools -be it public/private schools or others, e.g. faith based or Rudolph Steiner. I don't think that these schools have to teach the national curriculum, but the kids do have to/find it easier to have a normal life by doing the national exams. Clearly, the organisation highlighted by Panorama is doing a lot wrong and should be sanctioned in some way, but lets not through the baby out with the bath water.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You do yourelf a dis-service with such a broad post. Are you really saying that ALL Christians have a "live and let live" credo? And conversely, that ALL Muslims are intolerant? Come on...To say that 'Italy is hotter than Sweden' does not mean 'all of Italy is all of the time warmer than all of Sweden all of the time'.

Consequently, digging up some hot midsummer heatwave in Sweden, or pointing out the very cold Alpine regions of Italy do not disprove the statement either.

[rory_20_uk]

I am certain that persons of all religions can be intolerant. I do think however, that some religions do appear to be more tolerant of others. For example what is the penalty of stopping being a Christian in all major denominations? You'll go to hell when you die. Some Christians do try to make things worse by "saving the soul by destroying the body", but this is definitely post-hoc. In Islam? Death. Arguably, to not kill them you're having to re-interpret the texts.

This one is not a school, it's an after school. Private schools fall under OFSTEAD. When I was there we did have to adhere to the national curriculum. Things might have changed of course.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am certain that persons of all religions can be intolerant. I do think however, that some religions do appear to be more tolerant of others.

~:smoking:By what mechanism would religions all be exactly as tolerant of others? Or for that matter, all end up exactly as peaceful, embracing of diversity, stimulative of scientific enquiry, etc?

Different religions, like different political systems of thought, are...different.

[Fragony]

You do yourelf a dis-service with such a broad post. Are you really saying that ALL Christians have a "live and let live" credo? And conversely, that ALL Muslims are intolerant? Come on...

Also, I think some of y'all non-Brutunculi miss something re the state/independant school issue here. There is a long historic tradition of independant schools -be it public/private schools or others, e.g. faith based or Rudolph Steiner. I don't think that these schools have to teach the national curriculum, but the kids do have to/find it easier to have a normal life by doing the national exams. Clearly, the organisation highlighted by Panorama is doing a lot wrong and should be sanctioned in some way, but lets not through the baby out with the bath water.

I never say all you just read that, you do me a disservice by assuming I'm that dumb.

[rory_20_uk]

By what mechanism would religions all be exactly as tolerant of others? Or for that matter, all end up exactly as peaceful, embracing of diversity, stimulative of scientific enquiry, etc?

Different religions, like different political systems of thought, are...different.

Indeed they are. And in the same way that some political systems are not welcome in the UK, some religions should also not be welcome. Merely as the Celts used to drink blood from skulls of their victims does not mean that the practice is welcome these days.

Religious tolerance should be a two way street; those that are intolerant should not be tolerated.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

This one is not a school, it's an after school.

Well that changes everything in my opinion.

What people do in their own free time is up to themselves. Whether they want to pick flowers or learn how to kill is irrelevant to me, it's none of my bloody business.


I do not believe in limiting free speech.

[Rahwana]

meh, that very same things are taught in some schools here 10 years ago, and now, they start to hatch suicide bombers and terrorists, ok ok, Europe is not here, and far away in half the globe BTW, and I'll just laugh when 10 years from now, European start to produce muslim terrorists that create a lot of bloody fireworks in Europe because some "tolerant leftists" leave them out and "protect their rights"...

not my business, not my business...



Go grab their neck and throw them out of your country you idiot "tolerant leftists" they are the very seeds of terrorists!!!

*. PS: sorry to use the word "idiots", I just can't choose another words to describe that...

[Andres]

By what mechanism would religions all be exactly as tolerant of others? Or for that matter, all end up exactly as peaceful, embracing of diversity, stimulative of scientific enquiry, etc?

Different religions, like different political systems of thought, are...different.

Indeed. However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything".


What people do in their own free time is up to themselves. Whether they want to pick flowers or learn how to kill is irrelevant to me, it's none of my bloody business.


Yeah sure. Let people indoctrinate their children to hate people who hold different views. It's none of our business. After all, we should be "tolerant".

[Rahwana]

Indeed. However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything"..

very much true...

[Fragony]

meh, that very same things are taught in some schools here 10 years ago, and now, they start to hatch suicide bombers and terrorists, ok ok, Europe is not here, and far away in half the globe BTW, and I'll just laugh when 10 years from now, European start to produce muslim terrorists that create a lot of bloody fireworks in Europe because some "tolerant leftists" leave them out and "protect their rights"...

not my business, not my business...



Go grab their neck and throw them out of your country you idiot "tolerant leftists" they are the very seeds of terrorists!!!

*. PS: sorry to use the word "idiots", I just can't choose another words to describe that...

Yeah these are the ones, the 'tolerant leftists', decency fundi's they aren't all that tolerant they are vicious against anything that isn't 100% ok, sectists bah. And you can't reason with them, they are morally superior basta

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's not like its just leftists that are guilty of it, the standard centre-right parties seem to be pretty much the same. But then the far-right go too far in the other direction. Bah!

[rory_20_uk]

For the far Right it is an excuse to reinforce their prejudices rather than anything else, and as such poison the whole discussion. In a similar way I find it such a shame that the English flag has been usurped by association with thugs.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

It's not like its just leftists that are guilty of it, the standard centre-right parties seem to be pretty much the same. But then the far-right go too far in the other direction. Bah!

That is true, but the right isn't holding onto a flawed thought, these people preaching multi don't even live there, I expect people who do to have an opinion on it

[HoreTore]

Yeah sure. Let people indoctrinate their children to hate people who hold different views. It's none of our business. After all, we should be "tolerant".

"Tolerance" has nothing to do with this.

I do not believe that we will get rid of nazism by banning it. I see no reason why we would get rid of extreme religion by banning it.


Our stance is morally superior to this. It's about bloody time we actually start believing that. Sanity will never lose a debate to insanity unless sanity simply concedes.

[Andres]

"Tolerance" has nothing to do with this.

I do not believe that we will get rid of nazism by banning it. I see no reason why we would get rid of extreme religion by banning it.


Our stance is morally superior to this. It's about bloody time we actually start believing that. Sanity will never lose a debate to insanity unless sanity simply concedes.

So, what do you propose to do when confronted with such issues?

Nothing at all? Ignore it completely?

I'd say educate them, but well, ehm, they prefer to educate themselves and, morally superior as we are, we must allow them to have their children learn what they think their children have to learn, and not intervene, so :shrug:

[HoreTore]

So, what do you propose to do when confronted with such issues?

Nothing at all? Ignore it completely?

I'd say educate them, but well, ehm, they prefer to educate themselves and, morally superior as we are, we must allow them to have their children learn what they think their children have to learn, and not intervene, so :shrug:

Just why on earth do you think I want to "do nothing"...?

Where did you get that from my post?

[Andres]

Just why on earth do you think I want to "do nothing"...?

Where did you get that from my post?

Well, if you're not going to do nothing, then what will you do against this?

I was under the impression that the "not my bloody business" meant "let them, if that's what they want, not my problem" in a laissez-faire, laissez-passer kinda way :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

Sanity often looses a debate as the world isn't sane!

What was sane about the Great Leap Forward? Was it an accident waiting to happen? Yes it was - but it still happened. And it by no means stopped the Cambodians undertaking a similar exercise with even worse results (as a percentage of the population).

Surely you've heard it said that it is easier to defend a position that is "known" to be true than argue against it? If you are merely agreeing with current wisdom that fits into a 20 second soundbyte. If you want to argue against it with a reasoned argument... you can't. There's no time and if you try the punchy 20 second job you often sound like a lunatic.

In times of stress or disaster people want certainties. Generally science can't offer these, merely probabilities. People also want scape goats to exonerate themselves and someone else to take their anger out on. Rationality often fails on both accounts, but extremists often supply both in droves.

If you think that all people are open minded and inquisitive for the truth you'll be severely let down by reality.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Well, if you're not going to do nothing, then what will you do against this?

I was under the impression that the "not my bloody business" meant "let them, if that's what they want, not my problem" in a laissez-faire, laissez-passer kinda way :shrug:

So when I mention "debate" you somehow think I'm talking about "being silent"? Or is that just your prejudice?

Anyway....

Debate and education is the way forward. We simply need a little faith in our own moral stance, and the fact that it is far superior to barbarism. Democracy, rationality and logic go hand in hand.

I'll give you an example: the neo-nazi's used to have quite an influence here where I live. Even though the police have been after them from day one, they've just grown bigger and bigger. They are now, however, all but gone. When did that happen? When they ran in the election. A couple of weeks of actual debate, and they disintegrated. The leaders quit and the organization is no more. The conclusion I make of this is that forcing something into the underground doesn't work at all, while public debate kills it almost overnight.

But the lack of faith people have in our culture, democracy and morals disappoints me. And it's pathetic to see that the ones who talk most about our moral superiority are the ones with the lesat faith in it, and whom I suspect to be closet authoritarians.

[HoreTore]

Sanity often looses a debate as the world isn't sane!

What was sane about the Great Leap Forward? Was it an accident waiting to happen? Yes it was - but it still happened. And it by no means stopped the Cambodians undertaking a similar exercise with even worse results (as a percentage of the population).

Surely you've heard it said that it is easier to defend a position that is "known" to be true than argue against it? If you are merely agreeing with current wisdom that fits into a 20 second soundbyte. If you want to argue against it with a reasoned argument... you can't. There's no time and if you try the punchy 20 second job you often sound like a lunatic.

In times of stress or disaster people want certainties. Generally science can't offer these, merely probabilities. People also want scape goats to exonerate themselves and someone else to take their anger out on. Rationality often fails on both accounts, but extremists often supply both in droves.

If you think that all people are open minded and inquisitive for the truth you'll be severely let down by reality.

~:smoking:

Allright then.

Communism was illegal in the Russian Empire, and yet they managed to take power and murder millions.

Hitler was jailed.

Extreme Islam was illegal in Iran and they still manged to take power.

Castro's revolution was illegal.

Cambodias communism was illegal.

I could go on and on. Every single undemocratic force which has taken power by force has been illegal. Why on earth do people still believe that what hasn't worked 928374 times in a row will somehow magically work the 928375th time...?

[rory_20_uk]

To look a population studies you don't just draw conclusions from where it happened to work, you look at the whole population and see the number of places where it didn't, and ideally compare places where take-overs were done within the systems.

Oh, Hitler was elected to power legally.
And look at Africa. The number of leaders who have extended their terms in office or just removed the opposition parties show that usurping power from within democracies is alive and well.

Slavery in Europe / USA was got rid of as it was banned
The Tugee cult was destroyed as it was banned and hunted out of existence.
Pirates were removed from the sea not by debate, but by blowing them out of the water (we're trying the debate method at the moment - and it isn't working[!])

I could go on too.

It's easy to see where things haven't worked, a lot harder to know when they have and hence nothing happened.

~:smoking:

[Hax]

There are several schools of Jurisprudence (fiqh) in Sunni Islam. Most Imams adhering to the relatively relaxed Hanafi' school will most likely not say that gays should be murdered and thieves should have their hands cut off. A Shafi'i Imam would propose legal activity right now. Whether or not that constitutes cutting hands off or throwing people of buildings is another matter.

I would like to add to this that we often mistake the Wahhabis as speaking for all of (Sunni) Islam, while in fact, they represent a very small margin of a minority (the salafiyya). All Wahhabis are Salafis, but not all Salafis are Wahhabis. Terror cells currently operating in Europe and the United States are affiliated more with the Wahabbist interpretation of the Qur'an, while a large majority of Muslims are not Salafis or Wahhabis. It might be that a large group of young Muslims of foreign descent born in Europe are caught inbetween a rock and a hard place, or so they'd percieve. Looking for guidance, they look towards religion, and an interpretation of religion that constitutes behaviour not in accordance with European law.

What I'm trying to say here is that to say that they are Muslims is not incorrect, but we should take care in what differentiates them and other Muslims. If I were a peaceful Muslim and living in Europe right now, I have no idea how I'd feel. On one hand, the European society regards you with growing distrust because of your perceivedly extremist religion, and the religious community regards you with distrust because of your perceivedly weak faith.

And with the outright silly book called "The Invisible Ayatollah" that has recently come out in the Netherlands about the influence of extremist Muslim preachers in the Netherlands and the err, "leftist church" that has enabled them. Apparently, the muslim who wrote the book forgot that "Ayatollah" is a strictly Shi'ite term. The ignorance of some people keeps amazing me.

[al Roumi]

However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything".

No, the reason it is (or should be!) frowned upon is because the labeling of an entire religion -and by association the entire range of its adherents- demonstrates ignorance of its different interpretations.

As Hax has helpfully outlined, there is no single monolithic interpretation of Islam -and there is a real multitude of views within it. As ever, it's the bad bits that get picked up and denounced -which I think is right to do, but it is absolutely wrong to surmise that the whole of Islam is thus.

[Cute Wolf]

.... :no:
pride is the biggest sin... and sometimes, you can be proud over a futile "morally superrior" philloshopy, that in turns, will render you helpless when that was too late...

[HoreTore]

.... :no:
pride is the biggest sin... and sometimes, you can be proud over a futile "morally superrior" philloshopy, that in turns, will render you helpless when that was too late...

Our principles made us great. It's only a few centuries since France couldn't even feed its own people, just a couple of years before she almost conquered all of europe.

Democracy and liberty has made us great. Dictatorships have given us crop failures in Russia. To turn our backs on what has made us great will only destroy us.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.

[HoreTore]

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.

Indeed!

-Who won the American revolution? The democracy.
-Who won WW1? The democracies.
-Who won WW2? The democracies.
-Who won the cold war? The democracies.
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? The democracy.
-Who won both gulf wars? The democracy(ies).

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.

We only have WW2 etc to go on but the thinking is a democray is usually not as well prepared for industrial scale warfare as say fascism or communism in early stages. The problem for autocrats is people who dissent are ignored or worse so you end up with no one saying "Mein Furher an invasion of the Soviet Union will fail" everyone ends up a yesman.

Also intelligence agencies of autocratic regimes are better at internal security than at disrupting the enemy a crucial part of warfare today, also members of autocratic governments waste resources watching each other to ensure there quids in with the leader and as a result not properly watching there enemy.

[HoreTore]

We only have WW2 etc to go on but the thinking is a democray is usually not as well prepared for industrial scale warfare as say fascism or communism in early stages. The problem for autocrats is people who dissent are ignored or worse so you end up with no one saying "Mein Furher an invasion of the Soviet Union will fail" everyone ends up a yesman. Also intelligence agencies of autocratic regimes are better at internal security than at disrupting the enemy a crucial part of warfare today and the autocrats tend to watch each other to ensure there quids in with the Leader and not the enemy

The problem isn't so much the yes men, the problem is a little more complex.

In a dictatorship, when you think of a great plan, you do it.

In a democracy, when you think of a great plan, some other guy will say "no that plan suck monkey testicles!". This reaction will make you look over your plan once more, working a little more on it, making it a little better.

following your hitler example:
Hitler thought of a great invasion plan of the Soviet Union, and so he did.

If he had been living in a democracy, somebody would've pointed out how retarded that plan was, and Hitler would've been forced to look at it again, thus noticing the glaring logistic errors it contained, fixed it and rid the world of smelly commies once and for all!'

Compare the differences in planning of d-day with operation barbarossa, and note which one was succesful....

[gaelic cowboy]

The problem isn't so much the yes men, the problem is a little more complex.

In a dictatorship, when you think of a great plan, you do it.

In a democracy, when you think of a great plan, some other guy will say "no that plan suck monkey testicles!". This reaction will make you look over your plan once more, working a little more on it, making it a little better.

following your hitler example:
Hitler thought of a great invasion plan of the Soviet Union, and so he did.

If he had been living in a democracy, somebody would've pointed out how retarded that plan was, and Hitler would've been forced to look at it again, thus noticing the glaring logistic errors it contained, fixed it and rid the world of smelly commies once and for all!'

Compare the differences in planning of d-day with operation barbarossa, and note which one was succesful....

I agree it is more complex than just having yesmen but it is a valid observation of these governments.

My bit on intelligence stands up I would say spying in Nazi Germany was a basically useless for warfare and only used to watch the people and to watch the other members of the government.

[HoreTore]

I agree it is more complex than just having yesmen but it is a valid observation of these governments.

My bit on intelligence stands up I would say spying in Nazi Germany was a basically useless for warfare and only used to watch the people and to watch the other members of the government.

The authoritarian Stalin made a war-winning decision(moving troops from Siberia to Stalingrad) based on the intelligence(that the Japanese would attack the US, not Siberia) he recieved from his spy in the Japanese court.

[gaelic cowboy]

The authoritarian Stalin made a war-winning decision(moving troops from Siberia to Stalingrad) based on the intelligence(that the Japanese would attack the US, not Siberia) he recieved from his spy in the Japanese court.

There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.

Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.

[HoreTore]

There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.

Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.

Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....

[Rhyfelwyr]

IMO the main basis for the democratic success in wars idea is the fact they are meritocratic. Dictators tend to mess up their militaries either through nepotism, or by deliberately crippling them to reduce the threat of a coup by dividing them into different factions (often ethnic based, eg Syria in the 60's), or by completely confusing the chain of command so nobody knows who takes orders from who (eg Argentinian junta). Better just to have a democratic system where the military is accountable to the people, and is given the necessary freedom to do its job properly.


Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....

Heh, I often have similar problems writing on these boards.

[rory_20_uk]

The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist

So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries

@Hax, book is meant for the layman

[rory_20_uk]

Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

~:smoking:

Nor any democratic country, we are no pacifists. But how likely is it that the Dutch and English go to war again, or Germany and France.

[Rhyfelwyr]

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient

It was hardly run by a dictator.

Anyway, democracy is one one of many factors that determine how well a country can fight wars. Although you listed militaries there, the democratic success theories are more concerned with the war machine in general. Lake's 1992 studies on rent-seekign for example show democracies utilise their resources more effectively for war.


Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.

~:smoking:

If anything this supports the democratic peace idea, since the idea is not that democratic leaders are peace-loving idealists, but that public opinion constrains them, since the public tend to feel the costs of war. The fact that the US could only take covert actions in places like Nicaragua, Chile etc and not declare open war is due to the fact that it was a democracy.

[HoreTore]

The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?

New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist

So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.

~:smoking:

When a dictator fights a dictator, one of them will of course win.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is an argument though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

When a dictator fights a dictator, one of them will of course win.

I fail to see how stating the obvious is an argument though.

Don't get too carried away. Being a democracy doesn't make you invincible, you can't take the democratic success idea to be an absolute rule. The form of government is a moderately-important factor when weighed up against other things in determining how a war will come out. Most studies show democracy to be the best form in this respect, although there is also a tendency for the most authoritarian regimes to do pretty well, so the consolidation of the government in question has also got a lot to do with things.

[HoreTore]

Don't get too carried away. Being a democracy doesn't make you invincible, you can't take the democratic success idea to be an absolute rule. The form of government is a moderately-important factor when weighed up against other things in determining how a war will come out. Most studies show democracy to be the best form in this respect, although there is also a tendency for the most authoritarian regimes to do pretty well, so the consolidation of the government in question has also got a lot to do with things.

The humble points remains the same: for a democracy to survive, it needs to adhere to democratic principles.

[rory_20_uk]

And an equally good way for democracies to end is to be truly democratic (with the voters having views on everything).

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

And an equally good way for democracies to end is to be truly democratic (with the voters having views on everything).

~:smoking:

I'm having opinions on everything, and I don't see Norway ending anytime soon.

[rory_20_uk]

I am sure that people in China and North Korea have opinions... I rather fail to see the relevance of it.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

And an equally good way for democracies to end is to be truly democratic (with the voters having views on everything).

~:smoking:

You know we mean liberal democracy when we talk about democracy nowadays. Protection of human rights and the separation of powers are IMO much more important than the 51%+ say how things go aspect.

[rory_20_uk]

Protection of human rights can itself undermine democracy, as it precludes any effective method of dealing with some individuals.

Pacifism theoretically is great until someone plays by different rules.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Protection of human rights can itself undermine democracy, as it precludes any effective method of dealing with some individuals.

I cannot think of any such examples, although that's maybe because my take on rights is that you lose them when you fail to respect them.


Pacifism theoretically is great until someone plays by different rules.

The whole democratic peace idea is based on realist principles you know...

[rory_20_uk]

I completely agree with the concept that rights can be lost (and if appropriate, regained), and this invalidates my argument.

The 1930's show that defence is not always based on realism.

~:smoking:

[Sarmatian]

Indeed!

-Who won the American revolution? The democracy.
-Who won WW1? The democracies.
-Who won WW2? The democracies.
-Who won the cold war? The democracies.
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? The democracy.
-Who won both gulf wars? The democracy(ies).

I just wanna interject here and offer a slightly different viewpoint.


-Who won the American revolution? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW1? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW2? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won the cold war? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won both gulf wars? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money

[Husar]

Who won the Afghan war in the 1990ies?
Who won the Vietnam war?
Who won the Korean war?
Who won the War on Drugs?
Who won the invasion of Cuba?
Who won the cuban revolution?
Who won the french revolution?
Who won the Greek/Persian war?
Who won the War on Terror?

[Rhyfelwyr]

-Who won WW2? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money

Yeah, WWII is not the best example, since something like 85% of the Wehrmacht was deployed fighting the non-democratic USSR on the Eastern Front. Although I read somewhere else around 70% of the German war effort more generally (as opposed to manpower) was for the Western Front.

[HoreTore]

I just wanna interject here and offer a slightly different viewpoint.


-Who won the American revolution? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW1? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won WW2? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won the cold war? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money
-Who won both gulf wars? Those with bigger production capabilities/more money

I take this as support for my position...

Except for the first one, the american revolutionaries certainly did not have a bigger production capability or more money than the British Empire.

Who won the Afghan war in the 1990ies? - one dictatorship defeated another dictatorship
Who won the Vietnam war? - irregular war, when I say "war" I'm referring to regular wars, occupying a country is something democracies have shown themselves to be poor at
Who won the Korean war? - noone?
Who won the War on Drugs? - this isn't a "war"
Who won the invasion of Cuba? - the dictatorship won, mostly because the democracy(US) withdrew its support at the critical moment. an invasion with the full backing of the US army would have had a completely different outcome.
Who won the cuban revolution? - the revolutionaries defeated a dictatorship
Who won the french revolution? - yes, who did really win the french revolution? I'll let Louis answer that one... But at any rate, there was at least one dictator on both sides
Who won the Greek/Persian war? - dictator vs. dictator
Who won the War on Terror? - irregular and ongoing

[Andres]

No, the reason it is (or should be!) frowned upon is because the labeling of an entire religion -and by association the entire range of its adherents- demonstrates ignorance of its different interpretations.

As Hax has helpfully outlined, there is no single monolithic interpretation of Islam -and there is a real multitude of views within it. As ever, it's the bad bits that get picked up and denounced -which I think is right to do, but it is absolutely wrong to surmise that the whole of Islam is thus.

If each time the reaction when such news comes out has to be "but not all muslims are like that", then you are at least giving the impression of being an apologist. Sure, you didn't say that you agree with children getting this kind of "education", but it wouldn't hurt if you would first start with explicity condemning this and then ask people to be careful not to think all muslims are like that.

Maybe it's not your intention, but this is exactly the kind of reaction I'm getting enough of. It comes accros as apologising, trying to divert attention away from this unacceptable event and making people scared to be labeled as "racist muslim haters" when they're rightfully disgusted by something as children being indoctrinated to hate non-muslims.

In fact, by constantly addressing this kind of issues like this, people will start becoming racist muslim haters for real.

I don't know if I explained myself well. It's a subtle mechanism that comes accross as a waving finger and a "don't you dare say something negative about Islam or you're a racist".

Being disgusted by this news about indoctrination of children is not the same as labelling all muslims as evil. In fact, it is in the best interests of the muslims to not tolerate this.

Just like Catholic pedophile priests should be locked up and the key thrown away, these people indoctrinating those children to start hating non-muslims should be locked up as well. Period, end of story. And no unnecessary drama over it.

Doing the ""people should not use this to label all muslims as evil and blahblahblah" and in the meanwhile ignoring the issue at hand"- thingy is doing a disservice to exactly the majority of muslims you are trying to defend.

I also fail to see the relevance of this or that interpretation of Islam. The issue is: children are being indoctrinated to hate people of different religions. That's what we are talking about. You may find the fact that this particular case of indoctrination is organised by some Islamic group inconvenient, but that's how it is. Now, instead of going defensive and "defend Islam against teh evil racists", it would be better to open your eyes and see what is happening. Then act on it.

EDIT: I also fail to see the relevance for this thread to know who won which war. I thought history was for the Monastery.

[HoreTore]

If each time the reaction when such news comes out has to be "but not all muslims are like that", then you are at least giving the impression of being an apologist. Sure, you didn't say that you agree with children getting this kind of "education", but it wouldn't hurt if you would first start with explicity condemning this and then ask people to be careful not to think all muslims are like that.

So when discussing nazi's or whatever, I need to first state that I'm not a nazi or sympathize with them?

Shouldn't it be obvious that I don't associate with nazism even though I'm white? And shouldn't it be obvious that a muslim isn't an extremist or symathize with extremists?

Should all catholics be required to start their statements with "I don't condone child abuse, but [...]"?

[Andres]

So when discussing nazi's or whatever, I need to first state that I'm not a nazi or sympathize with them?

Shouldn't it be obvious that I don't associate with nazism even though I'm white? And shouldn't it be obvious that a muslim isn't an extremist or symathize with extremists?

Should all catholics be required to start their statements with "I don't condone child abuse, but [...]"?

That's not what I said. Don't pretend that you're obtuse.

[HoreTore]

That's not what I said. Don't pretend that you're obtuse.

So, muslims are required to state that they do not sympathize with extremism, while I don't need to state that I don't sympathize with nazism?

As a leftie, do I need to state that I don't agree with Gulag? Or Kim Jung-Il? Or the cultural revolution? The moscow trials? Pol pot? As a white european, do I need to state that I don't agree with slavery or imperialism?


Or does this just apply to scary brown people?

[Andres]

So, muslims are required to state that they do not sympathize with extremism, while I don't need to state that I don't sympathize with nazism?

As a leftie, do I need to state that I don't agree with Gulag? Or Kim Jung-Il? Or the cultural revolution? The moscow trials? Pol pot? As a white european, do I need to state that I don't agree with slavery or imperialism?


Or does this just apply to scary brown people?

No, HoreTore, that's still not what I said and I think you know it pretty well.

I won't play along in these kind of games, so I'm going to limit myself to : read my post again.

:bow:

[HoreTore]

No, HoreTore, that's still not what I said and I think you know it pretty well.

I won't play along in these kind of games, so I'm going to limit myself to : read my post again.

:bow:

So, only muslims or those defending some muslims need to make it clear that they do not sympathize with extremist practices.


Just checkin'.....

[Andres]

So, only muslims or those defending some muslims need to make it clear that they do not sympathize with extremist practices.


Just checkin'.....

No, HoreTore, that's also not what I said.

I was expressing how I dislike the technique of responding to this kind of news in a "not all muslims are like that", in the meanwhile ignoring the issue at hand and then let the debate boil down to something about tolerance and a X vs. Y thread.

Why can't we talk about if we are willing to accept the indoctrination of children by adults to hate people of other relgions in our modern society? You talk about debate and all that, but in the meanwhile, these children's minds will be indoctrinated and it will be very difficult to "debate" that out of them when they're grown-ups. Adults can do what they want in their free time with other consenting adults, be it SM or letting yourself be indoctrinated by the friendly neighbourhood terrorist. The OP speaks of children of 6; those are not adults.

In fact, I would go as far as calling this kind of indoctrination of 6 year old children to hate other people because of their religion (or lack thereof) child abuse. And child abusers should be locked up. Not debated.

The fact that the child abusers happen to be Muslims is irrelevant. Even trying to do something that resemblings something that looks like trying to label the persons mentioning this child abuse as muslim haters, is in pretty bad taste.

We don't want to lock up pedophile priests because they are Cahtolics, we want to lock them up because they are pedo's. Idem dito with child abusres who happen to be muslim. No need to go all "but not all muslims are like that!" here. As I said, that's very bad taste and very misplaced.

[HoreTore]

But it does make me interested in why you need it from muslims, specifically...

I've been here for 5 years now, and spent waaaaay too many hours here, and I have yet to see anything even remotely close to support of extremist islamist views. I have, however, seen the following:

-Support for "fire and brimstone"-christianity along the lines of "gays should be whacked"(even though Navaros might've been a troll)
-Several statements that 11-year old incest victims should be convicted of murder if they choose abortion
-Statements that the "wehrmacht wasn't all that bad and besides they tried to rescue the world from filthy commies"
-Statements that Screbrenica is a lie/way overblown
-That it's fair game to torture the enemies of the west
-etc etc etc

And yet, you need clarification on whether a particular orgah has views nobody on these forums have ever held.... Makes me very interested indeed.


I was expressing how I dislike the technique of responding to this kind of news in a "not all muslims are like that", in the meanwhile ignoring the issue at hand and then let the debate boil down to something about tolerance and a X vs. Y thread.

Do you dislike statements like "not all catholic priests are like that"?

[Fragony]

So, muslims are required to state that they do not sympathize with extremism, while I don't need to state that I don't sympathize with nazism?

As a leftie, do I need to state that I don't agree with Gulag? Or Kim Jung-Il? Or the cultural revolution? The moscow trials? Pol pot? As a white european, do I need to state that I don't agree with slavery or imperialism?


Or does this just apply to scary brown people?

When people feel the need to start about christianity when you criticise islam you usually know enough; apoligist. It's like the gutmensch that solemny declares he condems violence on both sides, they never do that 'yes but Israel'

[Louis VI the Fat]

There is a fine difference between, a) identifying something as, say 'Saudi cultural imperialism' or 'Wahabist extremism', to refine the subject. And, b) the protest that 'not all Muslims are evil'. The latter serves a purpose as a protest against unfounded generalisation. The former is usually said to further debate. Sadly, both closely resemble each other, and between writer and reader and assumptions of what the other intents there can develop a world of miscommunication.


One does not always need to assume evil intention, or racist undertones. For example, even though I have now two threads running in the BR about evil Muslims, does not mean I hate them. For example, I am looking at a Muslim right now, my colleague, just in the next room. I don't think of him as an Untermensch, a subhuman, an inferior. That would be nazistic, well below me. Instead I consider him a human of flesh and blood, put on this earth by Jesus Christ to bring me coffee and elsewise serve his white master.

[Andres]

But it does make me interested in why you need it from muslims, specifically...

I've been here for 5 years now, and spent waaaaay too many hours here, and I have yet to see anything even remotely close to support of extremist islamist views. I have, however, seen the following:

-Support for "fire and brimstone"-christianity along the lines of "gays should be whacked"(even though Navaros might've been a troll)
-Several statements that 11-year old incest victims should be convicted of murder if they choose abortion
-Statements that the "wehrmacht wasn't all that bad and besides they tried to rescue the world from filthy commies"
-Statements that Screbrenica is a lie/way overblown
-That it's fair game to torture the enemies of the west
-etc etc etc

And yet, you need clarification on whether a particular orgah has views nobody on these forums have ever held.... Makes me very interested indeed.

It was not necessarily directed at alh_p in se. Meh, keep refusing to understand what I tried to say, if that makes you happy.



Do you dislike statements like "not all catholic priests are like that"?

When said in the context of a thread about pedophiles who happen to be Catholic priests: yes.

Just like I dislike the statement "Not all muslims are like that" in a thread about child abusers who happen to be muslim.

Context. Time and place for everything.

[Hax]

I think we all know it's not all Muslims, and it's just not most Muslims either. I think the main problem is the thought whether Muslims do or do not regard extremists as Muslim or not. I think that's the main issue here. We're already aware that it is a (tiny) minority of Muslims commiting terrorist acts. It's just about how the other Muslims perceive them. And due to political inclinations we have, we either think that, 1) the mainstay of Muslims do not respect, condemn or publicly state their disapproval of Muslims commiting terrorist acts 2) the mainstay of Muslims doesn't care about Muslims commiting terrorist acts or 3) the mainstay of Muslims (silently) agree with Muslims commiting terrorist acts.

[Fragony]

I think we all know it's not all Muslims, and it's just not most Muslims either. I think the main problem is the thought whether Muslims do or do not regard extremists as Muslim or not. I think that's the main issue here. We're already aware that it is a (tiny) minority of Muslims commiting terrorist acts. It's just about how the other Muslims perceive them. And due to political inclinations we have, we either think that, 1) the mainstay of Muslims do not respect, condemn or publicly state their disapproval of Muslims commiting terrorist acts 2) the mainstay of Muslims doesn't care about Muslims commiting terrorist acts or 3) the mainstay of Muslims (silently) agree with Muslims commiting terrorist acts.

These schools don't call for terrorism, they are much more dangerous than that, it's voluntary apartheid, parallel society's with different laws. That is unacceptable.

[Andres]

I think we all know it's not all Muslims, and it's just not most Muslims either. I think the main problem is the thought whether Muslims do or do not regard extremists as Muslim or not. I think that's the main issue here. We're already aware that it is a (tiny) minority of Muslims commiting terrorist acts. It's just about how the other Muslims perceive them. And due to political inclinations we have, we either think that, 1) the mainstay of Muslims do not respect, condemn or publicly state their disapproval of Muslims commiting terrorist acts 2) the mainstay of Muslims doesn't care about Muslims commiting terrorist acts or 3) the mainstay of Muslims (silently) agree with Muslims commiting terrorist acts.

I don't care if religious guy A does or does not think Mister B holds the same religion as him or not.

What I do care about is that this kind of child abuse stops.

It's pretty distasteful to reduce this matter to a debate about muslims and the different interpretations of their religion. I don't care about what theological arguments one whishes to talk about to decide if a Catholic pedophile priest is a true Catholic or not; I want the damned pervert behind bars. Your religion is completely and utterly irrelevant here and to think that it's all about your religion is a form of arrogance.

This is child abuse and child abusers must be arrested and locked up.

[Hax]

I wasn't commenting on the situation (for it doesn't warrant any comments, these people should be locked up) but on discussions about Islam in general. As Louis pointed out, the argument of "not all Muslims are like this" can pretty much kill any form of discussion.


This is child abuse and child abusers must be arrested and locked up.

Exactly.

[HoreTore]

I don't care if religious guy A does or does not think Mister B holds the same religion as him or not.

What I do care about is that this kind of child abuse stops.

It's pretty distasteful to reduce this matter to a debate about muslims and the different interpretations of their religion. I don't care about what theological arguments one whishes to talk about to decide if a Catholic pedophile priest is a true Catholic or not; I want the damned pervert behind bars. Your religion is completely and utterly irrelevant here and to think that it's all about your religion is a form of arrogance.

This is child abuse and child abusers must be arrested and locked up.

I don't buy it. I'd consider telling a gay 12-year old that all gays go to hell(phsychological damage) or ":daisy: country x deserves to be nuked"(racist indoctrination) child abuse, but I don't see locking up his parents a reasonable or good way of solving that poblem.

And don't pretend like it's the only solution to it, and that all other proposals is just apologizing or agreement. This is an after-school thing, we should have a school system good enough that young people will question it. I was taught by my school that there was a god in heaven, but I've never believed that, have I?

The second problem is that this is just an organized way of handing down a system of traditions, beliefs and values from one generation to another. The school is just a tool, taking that away will change nothing, parents are still free to instill the values taught by this school in their children, whatever you may think of that is quite irrelevant. You won't even know that it is happening(by contrast, a school like this gets the problem out in the open, so we are aware of it and can debate and counter it).

The end result is that another solution is needed, one that is about debate and education, not jails. Because the law simply can't touch a parent who wants to teach their offspring that killing gay people is fine.

Bottom line is that I just don't see limiting freedom of speech as a solution, even calls for violence.

[Fragony]

I wasn't commenting on the situation (for it doesn't warrant any comments, these people should be locked up) but on discussions about Islam in general. As Louis pointed out, the argument of "not all Muslims are like this" can pretty much kill any form of discussion.

Well anyone sane understands that most muslims only care about what's for dinner and the bills. But there is this odd need to defend them anyway, there is no need to put things in perspective, it's the one who tries to do so that's holding the broad brush, I know muslims aren't evil.

[Andres]

I don't buy it. I'd consider telling a gay 12-year old that all gays go to hell(phsychological damage) or "shitty country x deserves to be nuked"(racist indoctrination) child abuse, but I don't see locking up his parents a reasonable or good way of solving that poblem.

And don't pretend like it's the only solution to it, and that all other proposals is just apologizing or agreement. This is an after-school thing, we should have a school system good enough that young people will question it. I was taught by my school that there was a god in heaven, but I've never believed that, have I?

The second problem is that this is just an organized way of handing down a system of traditions, beliefs and values from one generation to another. The school is just a tool, taking that away will change nothing, parents are still free to instill the values taught by this school in their children, whatever you may think of that is quite irrelevant. You won't even know that it is happening(by contrast, a school like this gets the problem out in the open, so we are aware of it and can debate and counter it).

The end result is that another solution is needed, one that is about debate and education, not jails. Because the law simply can't touch a parent who wants to teach their offspring that killing gay people is fine.

Bottom line is that I just don't see limiting freedom of speech as a solution, even calls for violence.

Agree and disagree.

I agree that the state should not intervene with how parents decide to raise their child. However, in this case, we're talking about massively organised indoctrination of children (5000 students? 6 year olds? That's not a case of daddy saying "all gays should go to hell" in the presence of his son). It's a completely different story than parents learning their kids value X or idiocy Y.

I don't necessarily want to lock up the parents, but I wouldn't mind seeing those teachers and those organising this stuff being locked up.

Imho, this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion", but I assume you and I will disagree on that.

[Andres]

Well anyone sane understands that most muslims only care about what's for dinner and the bills. But there is this odd need to defend them anyway, there is no need to put things in perspective, it's the one who tries to do so that's holding the broad brush, I know muslims aren't evil.

Indeed.

[HoreTore]

but I wouldn't mind seeing those teachers and those organising this stuff being locked up.

Just what will that accomplish?

And do note that it's not the teachers who demand the children attend the schools, it's the parents who send them there to ease their burden, just like we all do. The parents send them there to learn what the parents want them to learn. The children will still learn the same values, your action will just have the parents teach them.

[rory_20_uk]

Hence why the whole lot need to be deported where they can find a corner of the globe that encourages their beliefs and practices. Abscesses need to be incised and drained.

~:smoking:

[Andres]

Just what will that accomplish?

And do note that it's not the teachers who demand the children attend the schools, it's the parents who send them there to ease their burden, just like we all do. The parents send them there to learn what the parents want them to learn. The children will still learn the same values, your action will just have the parents teach them.

What it will accomplish? Dismantling this whole organisation. Some of those parents might still teach their children that crap, but I would be surprised if all of them would do so. The scary part is the organised mass indoctrination of children to hate (and kill?) people of other religions aka organised child abuse. Sure, dad and mom may still abuse their own child themselves; doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop the known organised mass indoctrination to hate and kill.

[Fragony]

Just what will that accomplish?

And do note that it's not the teachers who demand the children attend the schools, it's the parents who send them there to ease their burden, just like we all do. The parents send them there to learn what the parents want them to learn. The children will still learn the same values, your action will just have the parents teach them.

You are less likely to rebel against religious schools than your parents, much more social control as it's 'official'. These schools are a problem, they teach what goes against our values as an official institution, elevating muslim law over secular law. We would be nuts to allow that, this goes beyond relgion as a personal thing. But it's indeed also simply child-abuse.

Little addition, it's the same social control that forces parents to put their children on these schools, the 'uncles' will come at your door asking you why they aren't, refusing forget it, who's going to help you.

[Andres]

Hence why the whole lot need to be deported where they can find a corner of the globe that encourages their beliefs and practices. Abscesses need to be incised and drained.

~:smoking:

We don't do deportations in civilised 21st century countries anymore.

Besides, basically, you will be deporting people for behaving like idiots. If we're going to have do deport everybody who behaves like an idiot, there won't be many people left :shrug:

[al Roumi]

If each time the reaction when such news comes out has to be "but not all muslims are like that", then you are at least giving the impression of being an apologist. Sure, you didn't say that you agree with children getting this kind of "education", but it wouldn't hurt if you would first start with explicity condemning this and then ask people to be careful not to think all muslims are like that.

Maybe it's not your intention, but this is exactly the kind of reaction I'm getting enough of. It comes accros as apologising, trying to divert attention away from this unacceptable event and making people scared to be labeled as "racist muslim haters" when they're rightfully disgusted by something as children being indoctrinated to hate non-muslims.

Andres, for what it's worth, this thread starts on page one -as did the train of my comments:


This is clearly unacceptable.

I admit my first thought was "lets keep this in perpective", but 5000 students is a lot of people to poison with this rot. My google fu has failed me in finding (recent) statistics on independant faith schools in Britain. It would be interesting to know how big a chunk of the independant Islamic sector this represents. I also know bugger-all about the governance of independant schools, or what powers there are to limit this kind of hideous curriculum.

Re the Saudis, I can quite imagine that this does have nothing to do with the Saudi government, it's most likely to be some sort of charity. Plus, the Saudis govt is really only bothered about what happens at home and not so much about the country's non-petroleum based exports.

I am guilty of often jumping in on the defensive, but I feel that has a lot to do with the starting post in many of the threads here, not least the standard media perceptions (which usually initiate a debate) and their focus on the fruity fringe issues.

Your "annoyance with appologists" is concerning, but I can't help but feel that the main problems with debate on Islam are that the debate itself revolves around the "extreme" salients and that there is a massive lack of understanding all round.

[HoreTore]

What it will accomplish? Dismantling this whole organisation. Some of those parents might still teach their children that crap, but I would be surprised if all of them would do so. The scary part is the organised mass indoctrination of children to hate (and kill?) people of other religions aka organised child abuse. Sure, dad and mom may still abuse their own child themselves; doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop the known organised mass indoctrination to hate and kill.

Would be true if it was the institution that tried to "indoctrinate" the children. Won't have any effect at all if the parents hold those values, and wish to pass them on to the next generation.

But I believe we've reached the point where both our positions are made, were we find the other position rational and we'll just have to agree to disagree, as our conflict is one of different thoughts of life in general, not this specific issue.


You are less likely to rebel against religious schools than your parents, much more social control as it's 'official'. These schools are a problem, they teach what goes against our values as an official institution, elevating muslim law over secular law. We would be nuts to allow that, this goes beyond relgion as a personal thing. But it's indeed also simply child-abuse.

No, this is not an official institution. This is an after-school thing, aka it is done in the childrens free time. Kinda like a sunday school.

[Fragony]

Check my edit

[rory_20_uk]

I agree with your points. But to use the example of Catholic Paedophile Priests, most Catholics and eventually the Church itself came out against them - hence they are marginalised by their own.

The general perception - and I am sure the Media is partly responsible for this - is that most Moderate Muslims remain silent in speaking out against this which would allow the majority to marginalise these individuals. Many might feel that there is no need to do so as clearly this is the work of fringe nutters, but as in exams thinking that is not displayed is not often assumed.

Although there is a lack of understanding, there is none required on this particular issue: they are wrong and should be punished / removed from the UK. These two issues should not be linked, as invariably one gets unfairly tainted with the other.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wouldn't call this child abuse, they aren't in any way directly harming the children.

Also, are they making any direct calls for violence? Maybe it's just me but I want to live in a world where people are allowed to hate other people. Stay out of my head please. :yes:

And sure, people will say, stay out of these childrens' heads. But they are minors, parents and institutions have a right to teach them. I bet a few hundred years ago they could have argued it is child abuse to make a child believe they live in a godless universe.

If you won't support free speech all the time then don't get upset when you find yourself deprived of it. :shrug:

[Fragony]

I wouldn't call this child abuse, they aren't in any way directly harming the children.

Also, are they making any direct calls for violence? Maybe it's just me but I want to live in a world where people are allowed to hate other people. Stay out of my head please. :yes:

And sure, people will say, stay out of these childrens' heads. But they are minors, parents and institutions have a right to teach them. I bet a few hundred years ago they could have argued it is child abuse to make a child believe they live in a godless universe.

If you won't support free speech all the time then don't get upset when you find yourself deprived of it. :shrug:

There's a line, free speech shouldn't endanger others, limits the freedom of the hated, makes no sense no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

There's a line, free speech shouldn't endanger others, limits the freedom of the hated, makes no sense no?

But were there direct calls for violence? That's where the line usually is, no reason why it shouldn't be in this case.

[Fragony]

But were there direct calls for violence? That's where the line usually is, no reason why it shouldn't be in this case.

Besides that for example gays have to burn in this life as well?

[HoreTore]

Besides that for example gays have to burn in this life as well?

What's the difference in saying "that guy should be killed" and "that guys country should be nuked"?

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, WWII is not the best example, since something like 85% of the Wehrmacht was deployed fighting the non-democratic USSR on the Eastern Front. Although I read somewhere else around 70% of the German war effort more generally (as opposed to manpower) was for the Western Front.

Depends how you define "war effort". Luftwaffe was present more on the eastern front in the beginning, later more on the western and practically entire Kriegsmarine was on the western front all the time. Western front as in fighting the western allies. Even knowing that, most of the German war effort supported fight in the east so I really don't think 70% was used to fight western allies.


I take this as support for my position...

Except for the first one, the american revolutionaries certainly did not have a bigger production capability or more money than the British Empire.



Sorry, I just glanced before replying and thought you meant ACW, not American revolution. Yeah, you're right, but in that case there were many other factors at play (French intervention, war weariness in Britain etc...)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Besides that for example gays have to burn in this life as well?

Does it call for these children to do and lynch them themselves? Or does it simply take a 'moral' stance in saying this is what the law ought to do? We had a couple of debates in school on whether or not we should have the death penalty. That goes against what we now deem to be human rights (here in Euroland at least), so should we all have been banned from talking about such things/deported?

[Fragony]

What's the difference in saying "that guy should be killed" and "that guys country should be nuked"?

One is taught the other isn't

[Beskar]

What's the difference in saying "that guy should be killed" and "that guys country should be nuked"?

Because it is only one person who is not innocent.

The other represents millions of innocents dying, due to the influence of one man, who would not be dying with them.

[PanzerJaeger]

An evil Islam thread? I like this idea... kind of a one-stop-shop for all the awful things going on in the Islamic world instead of countless threads every week. This ought to be stickied as I don't see it running short on content any time soon.

Feds: Somali-born teen plotted car-bombing in Ore.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101127/ap_on_re_us/us_portland_car_bomb_plot;_ylt=AolnMMHG6I8pb3yQBam5leKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwZnRpOWVxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTA xMTI3L3VzX3BvcnRsYW5kX2Nhcl9ib21iX3Bsb3QEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQR zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmZWRzc29tYWxpLWI-)


PORTLAND, Ore. – Undercover agents in a sting operation arrested a Somali-born teenager just as he tried blowing up a van full of what he believed were explosives at a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, federal authorities said.

The bomb was a fake supplied by the agents and the public was never in danger, authorities said.

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested at 5:40 p.m. Friday just after he dialed a cell phone that he thought would set off the blast but instead brought federal agents and police swooping down on him.

Yelling "Allahu Akbar!" — Arabic for "God is great!" — Mohamud tried to kick agents and police after he was taken into custody, according to prosecutors.



Yeah, WWII is not the best example, since something like 85% of the Wehrmacht was deployed fighting the non-democratic USSR on the Eastern Front. Although I read somewhere else around 70% of the German war effort more generally (as opposed to manpower) was for the Western Front.

This is incorrect unless it refers to two very specific periods of the war - the Battle of France (when the USSR was a German Ally) or the Ardennes Offensive - and in the case of the latter it is still a stretch.

[Hax]

Anti Muslim Brotherhood Posters Seen In Its Strongholds (http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/anti-muslim-brotherhood-posters-seen-its-strongholds)


Posters attacking the Muslim Brotherhood and describing them as violent were seen displayed in some governorates only hours before Sunday’s parliamentary elections, eyewitnesses said.
Most of these posters were seen in Alexandria, Suez, and Ismailia, where the Brotherhood is particularly active.
In Alexandria's Ramleh constituency, posters read: "Remember their black history" and "No to the Brotherhood, they preach blind compliance or expulsion". The posters carried the signature "Youth Against Oppression".
In Ismailia, the birthplace of the Brotherhood and one of its current strongholds, the same posters were distributed in the larger constituencies.
In Suez, the same posters were put up right under the Brotherhood's publicity posters.
The posters were predominantly black in color and displayed next to the publicity posters of the Brotherhood and the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP).
The NDP on Thursday launched a wide-scale publicity campaign accusing the Brotherhood of violating the constitution and working to transform Egypt into a religious state.
The campaign also comes in the wake of an announcement by the NDP that it has filed a complaint with the Attorney General Office, in a step that could lead to Brotherhood candidates’ being cancelled after they are voted into parliament.
The current Brotherhood candidate for the Ramleh constituency, Sobhy Saleh, meanwhile, declined to accuse any one entity of putting up those posters.
"I haven't seen them and they are of no concern to me," he said. "This in not an election. This is some sad game and these are black days for the Egyptian people."
The NDP’s secretary in Alexandria, Saeed al-Daqqaq, said the NDP has nothing to do with the posters in question.
Translated from the Arabic Edition.

[Fragony]

They are no longer all that violent but nice, very nice, don't mind being a hypocrite when it concerns these peaches

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Missed the point entirely, bro.

Banning private schools altogether is, of course, the only possible way forward. This is far from the only instance of "loony private school"-syndrome, even if it is more graphic than other cases. Stop 'em altogether, they have nothing to offer society.

Banning all public schools would be equally effective. Require ALL schooling to be private. Have your Islamist schools and a BNP academy as well (though staffing it might leave the rest of the BNP bereft of literati).

[HoreTore]

Banning all public schools would be equally effective. Require ALL schooling to be private. Have your Islamist schools and a BNP academy as well (though staffing it might leave the rest of the BNP bereft of literati).

Uhm, no.... Making all schools private will allow schools like these, not remove them, while making all schools public will remove them... Not quite sure what you're onto here...

And in any case, this isn't a school as such, and this point is now irrelevant to this particular discussion.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Or Freedom of Religion be damned and just banned these Muslims schools outright? :idea2::juggle2:

[Fragony]

Or Freedom of Religion be damned and just banned these Muslims schools outright? :idea2::juggle2:

That would be kinda be destroying our own values, muslims can have islamic schools and mosques no problem, the problem is and will always be the islamphilae of the multiculti's who will never accept that there might be even a hint of a problem, even the mere suggestion upsets their inner mother, they get vicious shreek and claw when all ducklings don't march in a straight line. A dying breed but oh so creepy.

[Crazed Rabbit]

An evil Islam thread? I like this idea... kind of a one-stop-shop for all the awful things going on in the Islamic world instead of countless threads every week. This ought to be stickied as I don't see it running short on content any time soon.

Feds: Somali-born teen plotted car-bombing in Ore.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101127/ap_on_re_us/us_portland_car_bomb_plot;_ylt=AolnMMHG6I8pb3yQBam5leKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwZnRpOWVxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTA xMTI3L3VzX3BvcnRsYW5kX2Nhcl9ib21iX3Bsb3QEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQR zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmZWRzc29tYWxpLWI-)


I wonder how much of that was the FBI pushing him. It seems like a lot of their terror busts are where the FBI informant was the main force behind encouraging an attack.

CR

[Fragony]

Leftist insanity du jour, immigrant kids systematicaly get higher marks. Just because.

Owwwwwwwww the leftist church and their ideals

edit Wait, even equality isn't 100% equal, Turks get 0.6 on tops because they are Turkish, Marrocans only get 0.4 for free over Dutchies.

ES MUSS SEIN

[Louis VI the Fat]

Frag - link or it doesn't exist.



I wonder how much of that was the FBI pushing him. It seems like a lot of their terror busts are where the FBI informant was the main force behind encouraging an attack.
Good point. This terrorist was an easily impressionable teenager. Even normal friends without an explicit agenda can turn an otherwise fine young man into an emo goth with a girly purse and black lipstick.

[Fragony]

Frag - link or it doesn't exist.


Good point. This terrorist was an easily impressionable teenager. Even normal friends without an explicit agenda can turn an otherwise fine young man into an emo goth with a girly purse and black lipstick.

Why doubt me, it's true. Link is Dutch but fine http://www.elsevier.mobi/pl/svt/si/elsevier/po/opnl/dk/elsevier.12-03-2010.0203p0000/sc/els_nieuws/ms/FTwnnCnKa1/r/1291375966/pa/159497 The crave got really bad

[HoreTore]

Leftist insanity du jour, immigrant kids systematicaly get higher marks. Just because.

I don't know about your country, but this leftie works at a school with 40% immigrants and gives no higher marks to any group.

[Fragony]

I don't know about your country, but this leftie works at a school with 40% immigrants and gives no higher marks to any group.

Yeah sure but here they do, the equality DEMANDS

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why doubt me, it's true. It's not about doubt, it is about sources.

Event X. Person A relates X to B. B relates A's version of X to C. C's version of X will now already be incomprehensible to those familiar with the original X.

Links in the Backroom to substantiate claims, or else there's no serious discussion.

[Fragony]

It's not about doubt, it is about sources.

Event X. Person A relates X to B. B relates A's version of X to C. C's version of X will now already be incomprehensible to those familiar with the original X.

Links in the Backroom to substantiate claims, or else there's no serious discussion.

You have gotten a source, learn Dutch if you want to read it, you might even get some bonuspoints for just trying, but a paintjob is probably going to give you that boost up anyway

[Louis VI the Fat]

You have gotten a source, learn Dutch if you want to read it, you might even get some bonuspoints for just trying, but a paintjob is probably going to give you that boost up anywayDutch is easy for anybody who's mastered English or German. Also, a link in any language is better than no links. (See: Tribesman)

Meanwhile I spend a fine fifteen minutes quickly reading through this article:

Moroccan pupils in the Netherlands get punished more by their teacher than white pupils:
http://tue.academia.edu/PerrydenBrok/Papers/170307/The_Differential_Effect_of_the_Teacher-Student_Interpersonal_Relationship_on_Student_Outcomes_for_Students_with_Different_Ethnic_Background s

Because the students are little pests? Yes, they are. But there are mechanisms at work why they should behave like that, why the teacher-pupil interaction should be the way it is. Dutch schools are far from culture neutral indeed.

[Furunculus]

Europe finally has a school that is teaching something other than liberal hogwash, and the conservatives are mad about it....?

and conservatives find it odd that liberals actively supported the mechanisms that encourage the propgation of extremist material in British schools, when no good liberal worth his salt believes in such nasty things themselves, or would approve of acquaintences who hold such views.

but somehow, when its somebody else outside your immediate circle, and it involves different coloured people, we can write it off as multi-culturalism!

[Fragony]

Dutch is easy for anybody who's mastered English or German. Also, a link in any language is better than no links. (See: Tribesman)

Meanwhile I spend a fine fifteen minutes quickly reading through this article:

Moroccan pupils in the Netherlands get punished more by their teacher than white pupils:
http://tue.academia.edu/PerrydenBrok/Papers/170307/The_Differential_Effect_of_the_Teacher-Student_Interpersonal_Relationship_on_Student_Outcomes_for_Students_with_Different_Ethnic_Background s

Because the students are little pests? Yes, they are. But there are mechanisms at work why they should behave like that, why the teacher-pupil interaction should be the way it is. Dutch schools are far from culture neutral indeed.

Not our fault, they are less intelligent because of consistant inbreeding. Most are really really dumb, they are simply too stupid, the odd one that isn't a retard has great prospects.

[HoreTore]

Not our fault, they are less intelligent because of consistant inbreeding. Most are really really dumb, they are simply too stupid, the odd one that isn't a retard has great prospects.

...............

[Strike For The South]

Frag - link or it doesn't exist.


Good point. This terrorist was an easily impressionable teenager. Even normal friends without an explicit agenda can turn an otherwise fine young man into an emo goth with a girly purse and black lipstick.


Like the first time an older French gentleman sedueced me with his giant


I agree


Not our fault, they are less intelligent because of consistant inbreeding. Most are really really dumb, they are simply too stupid, the odd one that isn't a retard has great prospects.

lulz

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let me be very clear: Blatant racism is against forum rules.

If you wish to make a point against whole racial or national groups, at the very least back it up with research or statistics. Unsubstantiated generalisations are a sign of feeble thinking and unwelcome on this board when insulting entire groups.

[PanzerJaeger]

I wonder how much of that was the FBI pushing him. It seems like a lot of their terror busts are where the FBI informant was the main force behind encouraging an attack.

CR

I wouldn't doubt that the feds took this right up to the edge of entrapment, but he still pushed the button.

[Hax]

You have gotten a source, learn Dutch if you want to read it

Interestingly, the same logic that Muslim scholars use when it comes to analysing the Qur'an.

[Fragony]

Interestingly, the same logic that Muslim scholars use when it comes to analysing the Qur'an.

It's a shield of authority having to consult them, but it's pretty clear what it says.

[Hax]

It's a shield of authority having to consult them, but it's pretty clear what it says.

Uuh, right. That doesn't explain why there are four different schools of jurisprudence.

[Beskar]

(COLOR="#DarkGreen")

Is that a forum bug that your text is appearing Pink to me even though you specified Dark Green?

[Feel free to move this to watchtower/whatever]

Related note: I approve of BQ's message. Bigotry isn't wanted here.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It may be because I left a hash in there. It's now removed. Are things still pink?

[Louis VI the Fat]

It may be because I left a hash in there. It's now removed. Are things still pink?What pink? The page seems to work perfectly fine for me. All in black, with the exception of the little intervention in green.

[Fragony]

Uuh, right. That doesn't explain why there are four different schools of jurisprudence.

Illeteracy, makes it easy. Ask the imam.

[Beskar]

Illeteracy, makes it easy. Ask the imam.

Ask the Catholic church. It is why they didn't want the bibles translated.

[rory_20_uk]

"Didn't want" is hardly a strong enough term. "Tried to torture and kill anyone who even suggested it for centuries" is more accurate.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Ask the Catholic church. It is why they didn't want the bibles translated.

Gutenberg says anything to you. Reflex anyway, if you insist on comparing christanity with the islam you only show that you know nothing about either.

[Beskar]

Gutenberg says anything to you. Reflex anyway, if you insist on comparing christanity with the islam you only show that you know nothing about either.

All religions are the same.

[Fragony]

All religions are the same.

No that's bull, islam is both a stateform (well not really a state, but a political ideoligy) and a religion. Christianity is set in society, islam dictates society. Not a particular fan of either mind you, all religions are pretty much equal in the amount of patience I have for the religious, being somewhat less patient with muslims comes naturally cause they whine more.

[rory_20_uk]

Christianity doesn't set society, but it used to and it wasn't a power that was given up easily. Islam is more entrenched at the moment.

Muslims complain about being discriminated on the West. There was one on TV last night stating this. He was dressed in a cap, a long beard and wore robes. Of course the fact he's not bothered to integrate at all is not a factor of the discrimination... The other elephant in the room is the utter lack of equality of religions in so many Islamic countries. When other religions can convert people there in the way Muslims can over here then we can have a chat. As it stands you are in deep trouble possessing a bible.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Christianity doesn't set society, but it used to and it wasn't a power that was given up easily. Islam is more entrenched at the moment.

Muslims complain about being discriminated on the West. There was one on TV last night stating this. He was dressed in a cap, a long beard and wore robes. Of course the fact he's not bothered to integrate at all is not a factor of the discrimination... The other elephant in the room is the utter lack of equality of religions in so many Islamic countries. When other religions can convert people there in the way Muslims can over here then we can have a chat. As it stands you are in deep trouble possessing a bible.

~:smoking:

Islam isn't missionary.

[Beskar]

No that's bull, islam is both a stateform (well not really a state, but a political ideoligy) and a religion. Christianity is set in society, islam dictates society. Not a particular fan of either mind you, all religions are pretty much equal in the amount of patience I have for the religious, being somewhat less patient with muslims comes naturally cause they whine more.

No it isn't. Christianity was heavily dictating society (see: Inquisition and various references) and is very much political ideology, even having a big influence today (See: American politics). So anything you say Islam does, Christainity has done, at least historically. Same for the Hindu religion and many others.

It is just the natural traits of religion, and it is not just 'Islam', it is all religions. They are all used as means of control and power.

On other notes, many muslims are as religious as catholics I know. They just went through some service as a kid, and just call themselves Muslim/Catholic for the rest of their lives. But for some reason, you attack these as well just because of the label of 'Muslim'.

It is would be more correct to be attacking "aggressive religion"which includes all the bad bits of Islam, and all the bad bits from Christian Fundamentalism as well. All your examples are not just unique within Islam, they are elsewhere as well.

I am against all aggressive religions, I don't cherry pick the 'sensationalist pick of the hour' which Islam pretty much falls under since 9/11.

[rory_20_uk]

Islam isn't missionary.

Yet there are both forced conversions as well as individuals calling for others to convert.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

@Beskar, what has been done doesn't matter, what has to be done matters. Bible is written in passed pressence there is no obligation god can handle things just fine, that is totally different from the islam who sends mankind on a mission in the name of god

[Beskar]

@Beskar, what has been done doesn't matter, what has to be done matters. Bible is written in passed pressence there is no obligation god can handle things just fine, that is totally different from the islam who sends mankind on a mission in the name of god

The solution to that would be the naturalization of 'Western Liberal Democracy' into the population. So where many Christianities cherry-pick from the bible, many Muslims cherry-pick from the Koran.

[HoreTore]

Yet there are both forced conversions as well as individuals calling for others to convert.

~:smoking:

Ever had a muslim missionary knock on your door?

Me neither.

[Fragony]

The solution to that would be the naturalization of 'Western Liberal Democracy' into the population. So where many Christianities cherry-pick from the bible, many Muslims cherry-pick from the Koran.

Not the same thing still, christianity is a force within a system, it isn't out to change it. Democracy and islam can't coexist, doesn't mean we should fight islam, but the islam can't be integrated we have different take on things. Let's just stay out of eachother's way.

[rory_20_uk]

So... knocking on doors is the only thing that missionaries do?

I've had several with speakers / pamphlets / books on street corners. Just publicly updating believers, eh? :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Hax]

Democracy and islam can't coexist, doesn't mean we should fight islam, but the islam can't be integrated we have different take on things.

Interestingly, we have seen that Shi'ite states in the past have succeeded in modernising their society quite well. The Buwayhids (or Buyids, however you like it) nearly had a sort of proto-laïcité like state, where religion was not a matter of the state, but rather of the people. The basic tenets of Sunni Islam have some democratic elements in them as well, although that does not make them fully democratic.

Fragony, I recommend "The History of Islamic Political Thought" by professor Antony Black. It's an excellent review of numerous Islamic political concepts ranging from the early Rashidun Caliphate to the present.

[rory_20_uk]

Not the same thing still, christianity is a force within a system, it isn't out to change it. Democracy and islam can't coexist, doesn't mean we should fight islam, but the islam can't be integrated we have different take on things. Let's just stay out of eachother's way.

I disagree. Extreme right wing Jews for example will put religious law above all others. They can not be integrated; many Jews in Germany put secular law above religious law. They can be.

There are loads of Muslims who are integrated and we don't hear much about them due to this; in the same way Sikhs integrate by carrying either a tiny, blunt dagger or a symbol of one, not the wickedly sharp version they might have done in the last.

Christianity as pracitced in the Middle Ages could not coexist with democracy - look at Charles I in England for example with the divine right of kings. Things have moved on.

It all goes back to that countries appear to be obsessed to have multicultural societies, as opposed to multi-faith and multi-racial societies - but crucially one culture. So, abiding by secular laws foremost for example, and tolerating others should be accepted as normal behaviour by all. By pretending that every culture will somehow get along is unhelpful to say the least.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Interestingly, we have seen that Shi'ite states in the past have succeeded in modernising their society quite well. The Buwayhids (or Buyids, however you like it) nearly had a sort of proto-laïcite like state, where religion was not a matter of the state, but rather of the people. The basic tenets of Sunni Islam have some democratic elements in them as well, although that does not make them fully democratic.

Fragony, I recommend "The History of Islamic Political Thought" by professor Antony Black. It's an excellent review of numerous Islamic political concepts ranging from the early Rashidun Caliphate to the present.

There are many openings, but the islam as a political ideoligy is a very recent thing, it is no longer just a spriritual thing. We leave them be and they don't impose on us, sounds good?

@Rory, muslims can integrate, but they will have to burn their ships and get on with it, islam has no place here, muslims do

[al Roumi]

Not the same thing still, christianity is a force within a system, it isn't out to change it. Democracy and islam can't coexist, doesn't mean we should fight islam, but the islam can't be integrated we have different take on things. Let's just stay out of eachother's way.

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that some Islamists (i.e. Muslims who think Islam should play a central role in politics) see democracy as a foreign (western) construct, alien to Islam.

No, in the sense that other Muslims (including other Islamists) are not hung-up on where ideas come from, or don't perceive democracy as a system alien to Islam -and would hence be happy to use democracy as a system of governance.

The tragic thing is that most Muslims in the world understand "democracy" to be akin to the current systems of governance in Egypt, Pakistan, Palestinian lands etc etc. In other words, not "proper" (in the sense of well balanced and transparent) democracies.

[Hax]

There are many openings, but the islam as a political ideoligy is a very recent thing, it is no longer just a spriritual thing.

Yes, and you know who are responsible for that? Not the large mainstream of the Muslim population, but those politically traumatised activists from Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan. Before they hijacked planes, they hijacked the image of Islam.


EDIT: For some time I had little hope for reform within Sunni Islam, until I came across Ali Abdel Raziq, a Sunni scholar from Egypt who died in 1966. His views are very interesting:


"The complete separation of religion and politics is to be achieved in the interest of Islam, as a universal faith. The faith could, then be released free from the contingencies of history and power politics. This device can also be instrumental in furnishing the basis of modern state. It thus keeps the option open whether we want, to stick to the 'archaic and cumbersome regime, or weather the time has come to lay the foundation for a new political organization according to the latest progress of human spirit ."


"Islam is innocent of this insitution of the caliphate as Muslims commonly understand it. Religion has nothing to do with one form of government rather than anothe r and there is nothing in Islam which forbids Muslims to destroy their old political system and build a new one on the basis of the newest conceptions of the human spirit and the experience of nations."

This is incredibly important in order to (re)concile Islam with western values. He was thrown out of Al-Azhar university for his book, but it did spark new intellectual and philosophical debate in Egypt. If Shi'a Islam reforms in Iran, then Sunni Islam will reform in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.

[al Roumi]

There are many openings, but the islam as a political ideoligy is a very recent thing, it is no longer just a spriritual thing. We leave them be and they don't impose on us, sounds good?

Another interesting point. I'm afraid I don't think you are on firm ground arguing that political Islam is new. Right up until the break-up of the Ottoman empire, this was pretty much the way in which most Muslims (in the Middle east) were governed. The British and French rule of the middle east (after WW1) ended such Islamist governance, but as the emergence of the Muslim brotherhood in the 1930s (IIRC) shows -Islam as a central part of politics was never forgotten about either.

The concept of Islamism is indeed that Islam should be more than a spiritual thing, and play a central role in political society/life too. Salafists say that the purest form of Islamic society was that during Muhammads lifetime -where he personaly ruled as religious, political and military leader. So to a Salafi mindset, this is what should be aimed at -all 3 pillars of governance under one religious, political and military leader.

[HoreTore]

So... knocking on doors is the only thing that missionaries do?

I've had several with speakers / pamphlets / books on street corners. Just publicly updating believers, eh? :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

Huh, never encountered that actually. Only ever seen mormons, jehovas and some random lutherans do that...

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Fragony: the notion of Christianity as a force to shape society and more or less dictate its norms and values is something that is strongly entrenched if not a core value/proposition of quite a few Protestant churches. True, at the core the Quran has always been more about a practical set of rules/morals to which a believer must (strive to) conform; but you should not ignore that part of the beliefs espoused by Christianity/Islam involves things that are little more than attempts to read such rules/morals into their Scripture. So even if Christianity may lack some Sunnah it more than makes up for this by “interpreting” what exactly Jesus/Peter/Paul/et.all mean in some given verse. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

Muslims in the UK get TV slots to complain that they're being descriminated against.

Things in Pakistan are different... Death to the infidel and family! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11930849)

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Muslims in the UK get TV slots to complain that they're being descriminated against.

Things in Pakistan are different... Death to the infidel and family! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11930849)

~:smoking:

Why are you comparing a democratic UK to a dictatorship?

Religion is persecuted in China as well, should british people of chinese origin face restrictions too? Shouldn't Chinese Brits be allowed to tell others of Taoism because the Chinese Communist Party hunts down christian missionaries?

[Fragony]

Muslims in the UK get TV slots to complain that they're being descriminated against.

Things in Pakistan are different... Death to the infidel and family! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11930849)

~:smoking:

Let's put things in perspective, I'm from teh biblebelt and some kids weren't allowed to play at our house. Gutmensch knows that's just as bad and that islam is very tolerant. Stockholm syndromed lemming.

[Fragony]

Why are you comparing a democratic UK to a dictatorship?

Religion is persecuted in China as well, should british people of chinese origin face restrictions too? Shouldn't Chinese Brits be allowed to tell others of Taoism because the Chinese Communist Party hunts down christian missionaries?

HI straw meet grasp, are you really relativating this? Yep, you are.

[HoreTore]

HI straw meet grasp, are you really relativating this? Yep, you are.

Are you saying that the cultural revolution was better than fundamentalist islam?

You're starting to sound like a commie, Frags...

[rory_20_uk]

Why are you comparing a democratic UK to a dictatorship?

Religion is persecuted in China as well, should british people of chinese origin face restrictions too? Shouldn't Chinese Brits be allowed to tell others of Taoism because the Chinese Communist Party hunts down christian missionaries?

In China, as you well know, religion is persecuted by the state.
In Pakistan, as you well know, religion is persecuted by followers of the religion and the state which is itself heavily influenced by the same religion.

Why build this particular straw man?

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

In China, as you well know, religion is persecuted by the state.
In Pakistan, as you well know, religion is persecuted by followers of the religion and the state which is itself heavily influenced by the same religion.

Why build this particular straw man?

~:smoking:

The cultural revolution, as you should be well aware of, wasn't just done by "the state", but but millions of chinese people. Just like the holocaust was done by the german people and not Hitler personally, and religious persecution in Pakistan is done by religious people in Pakistan and not the Prime Minister personally.

Attributing the deadly flaws of communism to a select few, a "corrupt elite"(or state), is a well-known communist denial lie. I wasn't aware of any others subscribing to such nonsense. The attrocities committed by Communism, Nazism, Islamism, Cathlocism or whatever isn't performed by Mao, Hitler or some pope or mullah, they are performed by the masses, who are in turned whipped into action by those mullahs, popes or Maos.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, in China you're going back 60 years. You didn't mention that.

I was meaning that in Pakistan it is done by the individual Muslims - that was my whole point. And yes, they are whipped to greater acts of intolerance and hatred by their religious leaders.

How exactly does this make it a good thing?

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Are you saying that the cultural revolution was better than fundamentalist islam?

eh, no I didn't, how is that even related, or smart. I'm really bad at leftist logic, I just don't see it

[HoreTore]

Oh, in China you're going back 60 years. You didn't mention that.

I was meaning that in Pakistan it is done by the individual Muslims - that was my whole point. And yes, they are whipped to greater acts of intolerance and hatred by their religious leaders.

It's been happening for 60 years now, yes. And it's still done by individual Chinese citizens, though certainly helped by the state, just like religious persecution in Pakistan is done by individual Pakistanis, though certainly helped by religious authorities.

And I fail to see the difference between the two. Except, perhaps, that religion was nearly wiped out by the cultural revolution in China, so the opportunity to persecute religion isn't so big there anymore.


How exactly does this make it a good thing?

Good? Who's talking about "good"? My question was why what's happening in Pakistan(or China) should affect the lives of British citizens.

[rory_20_uk]

I still think China is a poor example, as it has increasingly opened up to various different religions which are tolerated as long as they do not try to undermine the state.

For Pakistan you can interchange Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any number of other Islamic states. It so happened that Pakistan is the current cause celebre as well as is the home of many Muslims in the UK. I find the irony that they feel persecuted at the same time their extended family does vastly worse things to other religions. No introspective "perhaps things here aren't perfect, but are a lot worse elsewhere" or "remove the plank from my own eye before the speck from my neighbours".

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

The difference between the two is that you excuse the fundamentalist islam by bringing up the cultural revolution, and would never excuse the cultural revolution by bringing up the fundamentalist islam.

[HoreTore]

I find the irony that they feel persecuted at the same time their extended family does vastly worse things to other religions.

I still don't see why that should affect british laws.


The difference between the two is that you excuse the fundamentalist islam by bringing up the cultural revolution, and would never excuse the cultural revolution by bringing up the fundamentalist islam.

Nonsense.

Does bringing up Gulag excuse the Holocaust? I think not.

[Fragony]

Does bringing up Gulag excuse the Holocaust? I think not.

Neither do I, and I don't feel the need to relativate either

[rory_20_uk]

I still don't see why that should affect british laws.

Laws? No. A feeling of gratitude towards one's supposedly adopted country? Yes.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

There are plenty of communists living in the west who'd like nothing more than to see western civilization crash and burn, just like muslim extremists do. But should that affect our laws?

I know a few people with deep connections with FARC living in Norway, taking advantage of our western civilization while hoping for a collapse of capitalism. but I don't think we should persecute or ban communism because of that. I still believe it is their right to engage in political debate, give their opinions and try to convince others that their opinions are correct.

[Furunculus]

So... knocking on doors is the only thing that missionaries do?

I've had several with speakers / pamphlets / books on street corners. Just publicly updating believers, eh? :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

they knock on the door and give us chocolate.

shame i don't like chocolate much tho........

[Fragony]

There are plenty of communists living in the west who'd like nothing more than to see western civilization crash and burn, just like muslim extremists do. But should that affect our laws?

I know a few people with deep connections with FARC living in Norway, taking advantage of our western civilization while hoping for a collapse of capitalism. but I don't think we should persecute or ban communism because of that. I still believe it is their right to engage in political debate, give their opinions and try to convince others that their opinions are correct.

Who's talking about changing any law? When it comes to these schools in the uk, yes but only because of a loophole in Brittish law. In general, no.

edit: stay away from these FARC guys, they are dangerous. Really. Ideological hobbyism for Che groupies, but the real deal isn't kidding they are just as dangerous as the RAF

[Furunculus]

Laws? No. A feeling of gratitude towards one's supposedly adopted country? Yes.

~:smoking:

agreed.

the aim should always be to naturalise an immigrant group, and if a particular group is resistant to naturalisation then they should be considered less desirable as a target immigrant group.

its called discrimination, and i'm all for it.

we have enough people who bitch and moan about britain already, without importing more.

[HoreTore]

we have enough people who bitch and moan about britain already, without importing more.

Bitching and moaning is a democratic right and duty.

[Furunculus]

Bitching and moaning is a democratic right and duty.

sure, from your citizens.

but it also a responsibility of the state to look to the well-being of its citizens, and that is not achieved by importing an additional bunch of people who will bitch and moan about being british.

a nations prime responsibility is to its own citizens, not justifying the unhappiness of 'natives' now because imports will become natives later.

[HoreTore]

a nations prime responsibility is to its own citizens

In a nationalists mind: sure.

In an internationalists mind: nope.

[Fragony]

In a nationalists mind: sure.

In an internationalists mind: nope.

Than kicking them out of the country isn' a problem either, why would it be, that thing is really big

[Furunculus]

In a nationalists mind: sure.

In an internationalists mind: nope.

that's fortunate, i'm a nationalist living in a nation state, phew!

[HoreTore]

that's fortunate, i'm a nationalist living in a nation state, phew!

Yes, that was kinda my point.......

[Fragony]

Yes, that was kinda my point.......

So can we kick them out, from an internationist view they can live on 99.9% of the planet earth. Not such bad odds

[Furunculus]

Yes, that was kinda my point.......

what was your point again?

that you, with an ideology that is irrelevant to the situation you live in, profess to be content with the unhappiness of your fellow countrymen neighbours, all because your 'utopian' ideal is more important than the reality they live within.

is that it, more or less?

[HoreTore]

what was your point again?

that you, with an ideology that is irrelevant to the situation you live in, profess to be content with the unhappiness of your fellow countrymen neighbours, all because your 'utopian' ideal is more important than the reality they live within.

is that it, more or less?

Ah yes, because opposing views must be ridiculous.

Everything is clear now, thanks!

What chauvinistic nonsense. Oh well, at least I have learned that trying to point out that people can hold different views without being retards is a waste of time when it comes to Furunculus.

[Fragony]

Ah yes, because opposing views must be ridiculous.

Everything is clear now, thanks!

What chauvinistic nonsense. Oh well, at least I have learned that trying to point out that people can hold different views without being retards is a waste of time when it comes to Furunculus.

You are the one dancing around reality, you can't accept it, it's against your religion. And religious you are, you just don't notice it because of absolute faith.

[HoreTore]

EDIT: On second thought I don't care enough to get an infraction over this.

[Fragony]

EDIT: On second thought I don't care enough to get an infraction over this.

Well done, babystepping to the leftist enlightment, it's possible.

[HoreTore]

Well done, babystepping to the leftist enlightment, it's possible.

Have fun with your delusions.

[Fragony]

Have fun with your delusions.

Horetore mia muca you are so equal when you are annoyed, but enough of this I don't want to be the cause of any backroom moodswings.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen, the mood is turning ugly.

Please refrain from personal insults or demeaning your opponent. I'm sure you are capable of addressing the arguments rather than each other's character.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Furunculus]

Ah yes, because opposing views must be ridiculous.

Everything is clear now, thanks!

What chauvinistic nonsense. Oh well, at least I have learned that trying to point out that people can hold different views without being retards is a waste of time when it comes to Furunculus.

why would you think that?

i disagree with many of my countrymen on many things, not least immigration.

the limit of my original argument was that the state should not import more malcontent's if it takes seriously the well-being of its citizens, and yet somehow my view is chauvinistic and i believe that anyone who disagrees with <me> is a retard..........

odd

[HoreTore]

This:


In a nationalists mind: sure.

In an internationalists mind: nope.

...Was an attempt to say that your view is logical within your world-view, while my view is logical within my world-view, and that we won't come to any conclusion because we see things in a different light, even though i consider your position reasonable.

To which you reply with this:


that you, with an ideology that is irrelevant to the situation you live in, profess to be content with the unhappiness of your fellow countrymen neighbours, all because your 'utopian' ideal is more important than the reality they live within.

...Which I see as another view of saying that I'm a retard.

[rory_20_uk]

It doesn't say you're a retard, merely that your beliefs are incorrect.

A belief by definition can not be altered by logical argument.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9264357.stm)

Something that I'd not come across before. This sort of activism is the only thing that can truly defeat Radical Islam - when exponents of the "silent majority" stop being silent.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9264357.stm)

Something that I'd not come across before. This sort of activism is the only thing that can truly defeat Radical Islam - when exponents of the "silent majority" stop being silent.

~:smoking:

No, rory, they're all evil remember.

[Fragony]

No, rory, they're all evil remember.

Where did he say that they are all evil, that's a leftist reflex, pavlov WOOF

good boy

[HoreTore]

Where did he say that they are all evil, that's a leftist reflex, pavlov WOOF

good boy

Where did I say he said they're all evil? Is that your "rightist reflex"?

[Fragony]

No, rory, they're all evil remember.

there

[HoreTore]

there

You need to get your reading glasses on, frags...

[Beskar]

He was saying that you call them all evil, Fragony (without saying your name, but it was an obvious reference to you).

[Fragony]

He was saying that you call them all evil, Fragony (without saying your name, but it was an obvious reference to you).

ya, gettit. But can't just decide that I say that, I have to do it first. His leftism blocks certain input he can't read it

[HoreTore]

ya, gettit. But can't just decide that I say that, I have to do it first. His leftism blocks certain input he can't read it

You've really drowned in your own fanaticism now, haven't you?

[Fragony]

You've really drowned in your own fanaticism now, haven't you?

Find me a fanatic post, there aren't any, it's not real

[HoreTore]

Find me a fanatic post, there aren't any, it's not real

The one I just replied to is a shining example. As are the ones above it.

EDIT: But it's no wonder that the fanatic is unable to see the blindingly obvious and subsequently denies reality.

[Fragony]

The one I just replied to is a shining example. As are the ones above it.

EDIT: But it's no wonder that the fanatic is unable to see the blindingly obvious and subsequently denies reality.

So where do I say it? Nobody did. When you say something bad about islam the leftist brain overloads and you get something like this

There are problems
SO YOU SAY THAT ALL
no I said
SO YOU SAY THAT ALL
no I said
SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

etc

[HoreTore]

So where do I say it? Nobody did. When you say something bad about islam the leftist brain overloads and you get something like this

There are problems
SO YOU SAY THAT ALL
no I said
SO YOU SAY THAT ALL
no I said
SO YOU SAY THAT ALL

etc

What was your policy on hiring arab workers again?

[Fragony]

What was your policy on hiring arab workers again?

I didn't, why?

[Banquo's Ghost]

This Week's Evil Islam Thread has just qualified for This Week's Inevitable Lock.

:closed: