Printable View
Not according to the evening standard. A couple of farook's facebook buddies are on the fbi watch list. Add to that a report from a neighbour of an unusual gathering of middle eastern men at his residence in the weeks before the attack and the lone wolf angle becomes less likely.Quote:
As it seems it was what was to expected it to be, seems like lone wolves though
Probably, but with things like this it is us that we should be worried about, screw political correctnes of multiciculturalists everybody with half a brain knows that it has everything to do with islam.
You are being melodramatic. Sensational news stories about American or French civilians justifying "something be done" is matched by no interest in the mindlessness of the proposed reaction. This is a fringe group, and a dangerous one. But it's still fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
How have we engaged politically with them? In Falluja for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So, using an intermediary is pointless according to the bible, but I must have missed the part saying the attempt is blasphemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The point I made is that christians dont generally punish or kill apostates anymore, while muslims generally do when they can get away with it.Quote:
The thing is that all the reformers who reform things which are wrong according to the book are false prophets according to the same book. We can discuss about taking things literally and how the book came to be the book now, but then there are also imams who say the Quran is not always to be taken literally and then it comes down to whether you find them or the terrorists more trustworthy...
I'm Catholic.Quote:
Or in other words, whose interpretation you, as an atheist, would rather support in public and which path would support your goals more...
No, it's buddhism!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a134.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It is basically based on false teachings and following a false prophet won't help you a lot.Quote:
St. Bernard writes: "It is true, of course, that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator of justice between human beings and God, and that, by virtue of His own merits, He can obtain for us, and wants to obtain, pardon and grace as He promised. But in Christ human beings cannot help recognizing and fearing the Divine Majesty, which belongs to Him as God. So it was necessary to appoint another Advocate, to whom we can have recourse with less fear and with greater confidence. And this second Advocate is Mary" (Quoted in 'The Glories of Mary' by St Alphonsus Liguori). What a distortion of the goodness of God! God is ever near His children, for His Son had bridged the infinite gap which had previously separated us. Contrary to the blasphemous words of man, the Bible assures us that in Christ "we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him" (Ephesians 3:12).
The bible says you have to check the words of the people you follow against the word of god to find the false prophets. Therefore following the teachings of the Catholic Church is following a false prohpet and as we all know these are sent by the devil to keep people from going to heaven...
And the solution is to tell them that it's the only way to be a good muslim?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
What about the ones who do not kill apostates?
Or are you saying every muslim secretly has a strong desire to kill apostates?
I expected that to happen, doesn't change the point though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
There are more revivalist movements than reform. That's how the uneducated and oppressed react, Islam is just a backdrop to that frustration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Chicken egg argument. What kind of fanatic could a middle eastern man be if he weren't a Muslim fanatic? There's nothing else. It may have "everything to do with Islam" but the Islam part could just as easily be replaced with some other strong regional impression if there actually was another one.
Jewish.Quote:
Chicken egg argument. What kind of fanatic could a middle eastern man be if he weren't a Muslim fanatic?
Sardony aside, this becomes moot once non middle eastern muslims start seeking the 72 virgins, like our farook here.
Incidentally, his wife turns out to have been in IS.
Sorry, thread moving too fast, I edited my last reply with a reply to you in order to not doublepost...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Farook is a middle eastern Muslim, second generation. He was either influenced by his first generation fanatic friends or his Pakistani heritage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
And the third/fourth generation British teens running away to IS training camps?
Still failing to see how praying to the saints for guidance and support as blasphemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Solution? I have none, merely an observation that the pre reformation church was very similar to present day islam (I'm sure that PVC will show up to contest that) and that church did not become what it is today without centuries of rebellions against orthodoxy that brought such war, ruin and rape to the christian nations involved that it make the prospect of fighting another one so unpalatable as to end the great inter-faith wars for good.Quote:
And the solution is to tell them that it's the only way to be a good muslim?
What about the ones who do not kill apostates?
Or are you saying every muslim secretly has a strong desire to kill apostates?
I hope that any upcoming Muslim reformation is less bloody, but going by the current trend towards violence and vitriol against critics from even the moderate majority of muslims(as emphasised by the repeated outcry whenever someone so much as looks at islam with a hard eye) I doubt it will be.
Which was?Quote:
I expected that to happen, doesn't change the point though.
The thing about confronting Islamic orthodoxy is that it doesn't need to be bloody.
A reform would only require three things:
1) Removing Muhammad's semi-divine status
2) Discarding Sharia, enabling coexistence
3) Delegitimizing holy war , I know easier said than done unlike the other two
Which in no way exposes Islam to accusations of perversion or necessarily leads to conflict. These are very simple things that Muslims can easily accept.
I said they don't go to heaven, where is the blasphemy coming from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I haven't seen much of that. A lot who try the hard-eye looking end up being wrong and quite a few others don't get an outcry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
That it is counter-productive to say that the terrorists' interpretation of Islam is the only true one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Theirs is the most strident one. There are some interpretations of their culture that can mesh with the general western secular culture. But once that culture turns to faith, alarm bells ring, and interpretations of Islamic faith that fit into the general western secular culture are so quiet as to be unnoticeable. AFAIK PVC (or whatever he's called nowadays) believes in a Christian faith, but I feel no discomfort in mocking his faith and generally asserting my secular beliefs. His Christian beliefs, and most Christian beliefs in the UK, mesh seamlessly into the general western secular culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Anyone who's been to these hotspots shouldn't be allowed back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
What do you think of Islam El-Beheiry?Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
of course it'sQuote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
Of course it's a chicken and egg thing, but why should we make it our problem.. Refugees leave sorry world behind, colonists bring their sorry world with them.
Slight mix up, regardless, still failing to see how praying to the saints for guidance and support gets you banned from heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar_UniversityQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
http://www.ibtimes.com/sisi-islam-re...ercuts-1947460
Sisi gonna Sisi. There are many of him but his mistake was that he was televised.Quote:
Maintaining the position and authority of the institution is thus a major priority for Sisi. The leader’s so-called religious revolution is “part and parcel of a broader and more traditional statist project,” said Michael Hanna, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor. “This is why both religious expression and religious immoderation are to be tightly controlled, as they are understood as potential sources of instability that could disrupt public order.”
And is that surprising? As I will say to Fragony below, you cannot expect people to have a 180° change of mind. And I assume that part of the reason they teach their kids not to adopt too much of our culture is that they are often not very welcome here (even before terrorism was a thing). And giving up a religion is only easy for atheists, everybody else is afraid of ending up in a sea of fire or so. I can also live with people who may not agree with me as long as they don't turn disagreement into violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As for being quiet and unnoticeable, wouldn't be the first time that a vocal minority drowns out the rest, that's more or less a fact of life.
Man Fragony, I'm fully with you on the don't let them impose their values on us, but the way you talk about it it usually sounds like you see a few pictures with five meanies and then you immediately want to throw all the families out with the dishwasher. When I hear of families that came here as refugees and built mafia structures, threatening judges and police etc., I wish the government would drive tanks through their homes and send them back to where they came from tomorrow. But I would never extend that to all refugees or think we can expect them to have a 180° change of mind just because they had to flee a place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Because the only way there leads through Jesus and not through saints. By praying to them you turn them into little side-gods but the first of the ten commandments says you shall have no gods next to God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Include all the idolatry and stuff and it really gets a bit much to the point where some catholics worship them almost more than God.
Of course not all catholics are the same, some may even be better catholics than others.
Then it's the duty of the supposed majority to assert themselves. The principal foundation of western secular society is to treat others as you would be treated. One aspect of this is that fanatics and any kind are unwelcome. In the past it used to be Jehovah's witnesses who were shunned lest your marginal interest should encourage them to take up more of your time. But at least they were peaceful, and respected your rights as an individual. See my point about Christians generally meshing well with the general secular society. Islamists respect no individual bar their own, and will happily exploit their host liberal society to widen their voice, and there is a far, far disproportionate tendency for their like to turn to violence. I try not to impose on anyone, except to help those in need of help where I see it. Why should I feel guilty about their so called less than warm welcomes, and why should I accommodate their subsequent turn to violence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And as for giving up religion being a hard thing for these second generationers: from childhood they were brought up to be British. Why was this easier to give up than a religion that they had to actively, to the point of leaving this country, pursue? IIRC at least one of these militants disgusted his father, someone who actually moved to this country and regarded himself as British through and through. His father disowned him as a traitor to the country that raised him.
Does the NRA apologize very loudly every time a white guy shoots up a school or an abortion clinic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Also see below, if you accept no group blame, why should they? Why do immigrants have more group responsibility than natives?
If you are so proud of our values, individual responsibility and same rights for all are good ones to start with.
Wooow, wrong connection. I meant the less than warm welcomes may hinder stronger integration of the more normal muslims, not that they excuse all violence or even terrorism. And if you see no need to feel bad for it, why should moderate muslims feel bad for islamist terrorism?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Were they? Or were their families placed near other immigrant families because noone British wanted them and they basically grew up in Little Arabia? Do employers accept them as British or are they less likely to hire them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Good for the father, or maybe bad after all. What is this anecdote supposed to tell me? Should I want the father to be thrown out of Britain now for being muslim and not fitting in? Did I say anywhere that all muslims in Britain are cute innocent little puppies and this proves me wrong? Are you saying sometimes young people do really stupid things and listen to the wrong people? Do you think British people protesting in streets and parliaments saying muslims have no place in Britain helped the young muslim guy listen to islamists telling him that the kuffar hate him for what he is or do you think it made it harder for him to betray Britain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You forgot gassing them all, get your reactionary right. But most aren't real refugees. Christians gays and women aren't safe in these centres, gays and women and christians are to be relocated away from people with culture, all these brain-surgeons ICT-experts and rocket-scientists keep the police from doing their job, they are too busy with 'refugees'. So yeah, a real refugee leaves his problems behind, they are timid not demanding. As some are. They even complain about not having a flatsscreen and the wifi is too slow. owwwwwwww they don't even get the food they eat at homeQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Have you ever seen a headline, NRA Member Shoots Up School. That is because it hasn't happened. Why do you assume the NRA is a whites only organisation? Why must they apologise for the actions of nonmembers? Do you apologise every time a white guy does something insane and illegal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
It is only a political interest group, focused on one issue. The right to keep and bare arms. Its membership is about 5 million. Less than 2% of the population. It would not be an obstacle to legislation were it not for the fact that very many nonmembers also hold that right near and dear.
So we should throw out anecdotes because they're anecdotes, in favour of philosophical theorising from a distance away that's based on nothing but your theories of how things should work. Do they build particularly high ivory towers in Germany or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What the anecdote shows is that there is an alternative to radicalisation, which you'd argued was an inevitable consequence of a welcome for Muslims that's been less warm that you would term adequate. The father himself didn't feel the welcome the country gave him to be unreasonably cold, and he's thrown himself into the identity of being British. Yet his son went down the radicalisation route, despite being raised from childhood by the state (and whatever your opinion of UK vs Germany, the British state helps a lot more with child rearing that the states that these people come from).
Your every post argues that Britain is in some way lacking that has produced all these radicals. Yet nearly every one of these radicals has been through a radicalisation process in the hotspots that I talked about. Those who don't go to find their identity in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. don't cause problems. They integrate well with the general dominant culture. Those who go to find their identity in these places are usually the troublemakers.
... in which case they are counted among the worshippers of other religions which the first two commandments deny in being REAL religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I'm not defending Islam either. But what you say of Islam is true here and now, when (some of) its adherents choose to follow the most violent tenets of it. The Bible has plenty of such, but Christians don't take them literally. That is the difference. So it is not the religion which is to blame, but the way people interpret it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Prayer isnt worship it's communication to those in heaven. It can be used as an avenue of worship but praying to a saint for guidance doesnt automatically make them a mini god, it certainly doesnt get you banned from heaven.Quote:
Because the only way there leads through Jesus and not through saints. By praying to them you turn them into little side-gods but the first of the ten commandments says you shall have no gods next to God.
Include all the idolatry and stuff and it really gets a bit much to the point where some catholics worship them almost more than God.
Of course not all catholics are the same, some may even be better catholics than others.
...but they do not tell the worshippers of Yahweh to kill or forcably convert the non believers: kind of my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
I don't know the Bible well enough to claim the opposite, but perhaps they do. Anyway, on condition of a biased reading it may be interpreted the way you suggest. And it was, not once. My point was that one shouldn't take any words in the holy texts as direct or indirect guidance to action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Bible: did thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Quran: do this
Don't like either but the difference isn't that hard to grasp
If memory serves, and it has been decades since I even held a bible, let alone studied it, the violence in it is always directed at specific peoples for a set duration or goal. Not an open and ongoing struggle for supremacy with all the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Were it only the minority beliefs of a few within the whole of the religion it would not be terribly alarming. It is primarily one branch of Islam, the Sunni, but not completely limited to them. However, some 940 million of the estimated 1 billion Muslims are adherents to this branch of Islam and of the Sunnah.
All branches seek the imposition of Sharia Law universally.
We prefer to ignore studies showing 23 to 25% of Muslims have been radicalised. I guess it makes us feel better to think that it is only a tiny percentage. Even so, one percent of a billion is 10 million. Let us say that only 5% would sympathise with the 1%. That is only another 50 million who would harbour or protect the most militants.
While I think if left in isolation within Muslim Nations this movement may play its self out but the active importation into Europe, in the name of Multiculturalism, is political, if not actual suicide for western civilisation.
I woudn't look too far into that, if you ask an devout muslim if he wwould prefer islamimic law and he says yes it can also only mean that he would prefer it. Prefering it is ok, imposing is not.People tend to forget that ordinary muslims are terrified of these guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Yes, because the majority has to assert itself. I usually start on Instagram, then go via Twitter before I call Infowars live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Exactly, my argument was that ALL white British people are horrible creatures and that is why ALL muslims are radicals, that is why I said inevitable and totally excusable. I'm glad we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I was always a supporter of the idea of an inferior Britain, you really should have joined Hitler during the war. Would you ever mind explaining why the ones who do not want to cut our heads off have to apologize for the others or get thrown out of the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I'm glad that you noticed how I silently steered the discussion towards one about Britain to show its inferiority and that you saw how I apologized for terrorists.
@Fragony: I want gas chambers only for white people because of their inherent guilt.
The Irish and Italian waves comes and all they bring with them are street hooligans and organized crime! We have to deport them all, their papist values are incompatible with American culture. They're more loyal to the pope than they are to our own laws! They will never integrate into our society!
Signed, Reasonable Man from 1920
That's just your "narrative".Quote:
Originally Posted by Graphic
Society in general was a lot harsher to people who didn't assimilate. Just because they did assimilate does not mean in general all types will assimilate. Your logic is terrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graphic
If you make people miserable and take away their ability to fight back they will assimilate.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
America forced people to assimilate, pretty brutally at times, and now it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
My point is that it has less to do with the incoming group and more to do with the society they come into.
Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes.
Ahh ok. Well, I agree with everything you just said. I think that since we do not behave the same way that we did back in the 1920s, it is bad reasoning to assume that new immigrants will be as receptive to assimilation as those in previous eras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I'm curious on your thoughts regarding the recent London stabbings.
London stabbings?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Oh - there were some stabbings by a man claiming to be retaliating for Syria?
I'm afraid that stabbings in London are rather like shooting in New York some years ago.
I'm inclined to think he may have been drunk and he may have been a Muslim. The motives may be slightly novel but in general this sort of thing is relatively common crime-wise in the Capital.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Thanks, that's good for me to hear (not the fact that there are frequent stabbings, but you understand what I am saying). It was blowing up in my news feed and I have been getting more critical about how "newsworthy" these type of events are.
It's newsworthy that he mentioned Syria and so people are saying "terrorism" but stabbings in London are no longer shocking.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Slitting someones throat with a machette normal? Nah this is not your ordinary stabbingQuote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
"Why did people in the Middle East gradually convert from Greek and Coptic Christianity to Islam? It made their lives much easier, they had better legal rights and paid lower taxes." :laugh4: That is a nice point of view, but, unfortunately, quite remote from reality.
If you were not a Muslim you were part of the sub-humans categories if you belonged to the Religions from the Book (Jews and Christians) and none-humans if you were a Pagan.
The second one was promptly executed.
The first category was permanent slave, had to pay for life every year, and no legal right whatsoever, had a status of dhimmis. Their children could be taken as slaves for whatever purpose for sexual use to military use.
So the reason why they convert was to save their lives, get legal rights and pay taxes only in money, having access to proper job, having the right to own properties (and not being one). Roughly.
non-islamapoligists call it dhimmitude for a reason
I advise you to read Leviticus, in which you will find many do's and dont's. For instance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Leviticus 20
Punishments for Sin
20 The Lord said to Moses,
2 “Say to the Israelites:
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
(Woody Allen and Mia Farrow are still not stoned?)
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
Generally speaking, both books are supposed to be value models for the adherents. If it is written in a holy book, it is the example to follow. It doesn't really matter what tense or mood of verbs is there.
Yet it was used as an ultimate guidance for many attacks on any unfaithful and heretics which is more or less equal to the desire to turn everyone to Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Perhaps it was true of later epochs, but at the time of the First Crusade the Cristians of Outremer were not molested by the Muslims and many of them OPPOSED the crusaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law. Under the Arabs Christians and Jews were afforded limited rights and were required to pay additional taxes. The situation was roughly similar to the one Gentiles were in during the early Roman Empire. Christians and Jews were not "sub humans" but nor were they citizens, being outside the Islamic community. Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Now, under the Ottoman Turks the situation was very different and, frankly, all non-Turks were abused to a degree up until the late 18th century, I think.
Ignorenta Sacerdoti are responsible for most of the ill in the world. If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Of course, that only applies to Christians.
"No, you are conflating Arab Islamic law with later Turkish Law" Turkish Islamic Law.
The Turkish Empire was built on Islam, and the Turks were as Islamic that the Arabs/Kurdes were.
"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...
Well, that's a matter of opinion - but my point is still valid because the Ottoman Empire presided over territory that had already undergone Islamisation under the Arabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Anyway, why are you arguing about this? You're just saying the same thing as me, but a bit more extreme.
You are familiar with the concept of citizenship - we are a bit nicer about things today but the fact remain that if you aren't a part of the polity you aren't entitled to a say in how the country is run. Our law courts are more even handed because over the last two centuries the countries of the world have developed reciprocal arrangements.Quote:
"Roughly, a Christian man was worth 1/3 of a Muslim in a court of law." Less than a woman... And it really looks like a good definition of sub-human to me... A lesser class, not worth of...
Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people.
"Compare this to the areas under Germanic or Roman Law - non Christians were actual non-people." Certainly, but a lot of people were not people in Rome or under Germanic Law, this was not reserved to the Christian... Note that when the Christians took power, first it was thanks to a military victory, not really by conversions, then the Pagans became the sub-humans and were persecuted, under the same laws they kept from the Roman Empire...
Times were like this, and it is not about blame games... The reality is/was that all powers tend to impose their rules, and my point was not to paint it in too rosy colours...
I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Matthew 5
The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:
Mark 11
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.
Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.
Yeah but that's quite inconvenient, so can we just go back to picking and choosing from the good book?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
How dare you state the oh so obvious
You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.
What errors are you refering to, I hope you don't mean what happened in Europe in WW2 but it would be of. But yes we should weather the storm and don't overeact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicultural left is so dangerous. They will abandon theirworldview, they should be gently but firmly be escorted to their padded walls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
wtf did anyone expect
Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.
I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.
Resseting that to mostly, without saying anything myself, can you dismiss that a lot of areas in Europe are now no-go areas. Multicurtulism has always been a narcist dream of self-congratuling gutmenschen. Reality is now, it doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Where are these "no go" areas? And who is it that can't go?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Ambulances, police. Can't is a shade too grey, but they avoid area's that are enriched with people with culture when they can. Ambulances refuse to go there unles they get police protection. You know that's true, don't pretend you don't know it. It isn't just England where there are self-acaimed sharia-police monitoring the street and people are just hostile, problem is everywhere where islam is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Fact free post. Where are these places and who can't go. I want some basic factual support for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But we should talk about books making people do things. And if we are wrong admit we are wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Can I counter that by saying that a large chunk isn't interested in humanity? The gab is too big to take humanity for granted, man is wolf to manQuote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What did you think of the reciprocal relations of the two blocs' governments during the Cold War? Did you think, at the time, that it was unreasonably restrictive on basic human rights? Or did you accept it as a fact of life? I'd like to know what your experience of it was. My own experience is that planes flying over the USSR expected to be shot down, so even transit across airspace wasn't allowed, let alone actual travel to and from these countries. I didn't think it was unreasonable then. The USSR could do whatever it liked with its borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Difficult to know where to begin unpicking this.
Things can be "facts of life" and still be unjust.
Travel to the eastern bloc was certainly possible, and happened quite a bit.
What does that have to do with the current situation? We aren't talking about federations of nation states lining up in opposition. It would be clearer if we were, and perhaps that's your issue. You long for clarity and simplicity so that your clear and simple approaches make sense. You need to disavow yourself of this misunderstanding.
And you refuse to recognise a common fact that distinguishes between Muslims who don't cause trouble and Muslims who do. By your theoretical and philosophical arguments, you seek to mix the former with the latter, when the latter are easily and clearly distinguishable using existing methods. How would you define the latter? Or are you arguing that the latter does not exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
BTW, I'm a frequent traveller on the east London railways, where the 2005 actual and attempted bombings took place, and where the recent stabbing took place. Unlike an Exeterian like you, I am familiar with the surroundings of Liverpool Street, Aldgate, The Oval, Leytonstone, etc. So if you want to talk about people not being affected, maybe you should be looking at yourself.
NB. I went to see the Lord's Test 2 days after the 7/7 bombings. 7/7 was, of course, the day that the Test started. People who went on the Thursday, if they hadn't been directly affected by the bombs, would have had to walk home from NW London (you do read the Standard, right?). For me, that would have meant 30-40 miles to the other end of the city.
BTW, were you around during the Cold War era? You seem to be only aware of the post-Cold War world, and you assume that the world now is the world that's always been.
My background, which you know nothing about, is irrelevant. I would rather rebutt your arguments than attempt to measure our lifetime proximity to terror attacks or where I was during the cold war.
What is this "fact" that distinguishes violent from non violent Muslims?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I guess it's easy for Exeterian uber-liberals to preach philosophy from an ivory tower when they're not affected by how their philosophy works out in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Radicalisation. I await your definition of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I've been doing this Internet bickering thing for over 20 years. I can't be provoked that easily. I'll stick to actually discussing the issue and steer clear of the inaccurate and desperate ad hominem.
You still haven't been clear on the fact that differentiates violent and non violent Muslims. Saying "radicalisation" doesn't give any further illumination.
You seem a bit detached from your fellow Brits who happen to be Muslim. Don't you know that a lot of them feel obligated to go to Saudi Arabia for religious reasons at some point?
You'd be exiling most ordinary Muslims based on your logic that the religious ones are the problem.
Illumination doesn't work when the other party persists in pinching out the light. I've already given an effective definition using methods available to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
That's their problem with their religion. If they can't redefine their culture into one that fits with the dominant British culture, which has been remarkably undemanding to the point where nearly anyone and their dog can make the mark, then they can leave of their own accord, since that's the definition I can see working. If they don't want to leave, then I see no problem with them, as they've obviously opted to throw in their lot with Britain. People who throw in their lot with Britain's liberal humanist society don't tend to want to blow innocents up on the streets of London (or indeed under them).Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
How does pilgrimage not make them fit for british culture?
They go to countries that are notable for producing radicals who return to Britain and other countries to cause trouble. Christianity has dropped the idea of pilgrimage. Maybe British Muslims should think about that too. There are many beautiful places in the world that are untainted by extremist Islamism that they can travel to instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by HitWithThe5
Better stop Catholics and Protestants traveling to Northern Ireland then...