http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...referrer=yahoo
Must be my birthday. Dhimmitude, climate-madness and royals, the trinity of everything that annoys me all in one man. I mean what is going on here.
Printable View
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...referrer=yahoo
Must be my birthday. Dhimmitude, climate-madness and royals, the trinity of everything that annoys me all in one man. I mean what is going on here.
Indeed, I isn't it gloriously unexpected that he be learned, tolerant and royalty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Here frags, have a tissue for the foam around your mouth.
uh-huh, naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
No idea. I imagine he saw Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Lybia and Saudi Arabia and was overcome with their tolerance and progressive environmental principles and saw this as the way forward...
Just remember that anything European or God Forbid English or Christian is Eeeevil. The only good comes foreign religions and practices.
~:smoking:
I still like his stance on genetically modified food.
Don't eat the tomatoes, they'll turn you into a monster!
If a royal did this here we would be very upset, the English must be more used to it by nowQuote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Maybe. Or maybe he has actualy read the Quran himself? I don't think his comments call on the western world to follow the example set by the Muslim world, he says instead that there is something to learn from islamic principles. I am again labouring under the assumption that this is not at the hand cutting, stoning and chauvinist side of the cultural spectrum however.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I pity the mod who will have to clean up after this thread.
pff. Perhaps in the same way the UK should be self congratulatory about not handing a degree of electoral power to a celebrated xenophobic bigot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
easy with that I biteQuote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
oh he not me nvm
:smile: yes, regretably, there is probably more tolerance for hate mongers here than peaceful muslims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Frags, he was giving a speech on environmentalism at the oxford center for islamic studies. Speeches are always tailored for the audience. It leads to some amusing moments when they are reported on though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Like what?Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
What do you think we learn from the teaching "there is no separation between man and nature"?Quote:
Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is 'no separation between man and nature'
In any religious books there are many principles to follow any possible view. Even paedophilia is covered :thumbsup:
There are a similar number of ones that can be taken out of the bible... Sadly Jesus managed to keep his hands off 6 year olds though...
~:smoking:
And you wonder why? These normal everydaybakeyourbread-muslims aren't interesting to leftist idealists there has got to be more, even they they can fold in the warmth of their embrace. No matter that they really can't but scrap that. Can we please just act normal? How egocentric can one possibly be to use other people's living-space as a testground.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Respec', innit. Respect for nature, as we (belatedly) have respect for man. Clearly, that allows for a lot -as consistency is by no means a watch word for "good".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
But what on earth does that mean? I have no idea. What is unnatural about man? What does it mean to have respect for nature? Are we trying to stop global warming because it's bad for the earth or because it's bad for us? And in what way is there "no separation between man and nature"?Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
paedophilia is a modern concept, in those days, if a female bleeds, she is a woman, not a child. Both christians, muslims and non-christians alive during that time did it, probably even the pope. (The popes were known for their secret wives and love affairs).Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I would assume that even back then it would've been exceedingly rare for a six or nine year old girl to mentruate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
But bleed, that I'm quite sure they did. That's what happens when grown up brutes force themselves onto (into) nine year olds. Maybe Mohammed was very underendowed, and his insecurity about this led him to rape nine year olds and write violent fantasies about subjugating other peoples.
Moderator NOTE: While Mohamed's marriage to a girl who was very much underage by modern standards is a historical fact, characterizing it as rape takes a harsh tone and is a charaterization with which many followers of Islam (and some others) might disagree. By our modern ethical and legal standards, informed consent is simply impossible at 6, or 9 or whatever, and it would indeed be labeled as a "rape." Sadly, Louis is all to correct as to the physical damage possible from mature male/immature female pairings.
To ALL: be careful with this, remember that more than just a few of us read this, regardless of how many respond in a given thread.
I believe he didn't have sex with the 6 year old, he only married her then. Akin to the European Kings between cousins, sisters, daughters, etc. It depends if we are going to call a bunch of people paedophiles or just realise it is a product of its times, rather then lamblast muslims over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I mean, there are lots of things you could object to in the Koran on a ideological or moral settings, but to point something out which is obviously a product of a time, just to insult them? It really shows immaturity, if that is the most "evil" or "objectionable" thing in the Koran.
If man is meant to be a slave to God should we not enslave nature as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Consummate isn't a soup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
But they do claim to believe in absolute morality, so they can't dismiss things as being appropriate in certain times/culture etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Daily :daisy: Mail? That's donkey feces of the highest order, comparable to our Telegraaf.
The Sun and Sexpress are worse.
Anyhoo, the three most terrifying words in the British vocabulary are King Charles III.
Actually, this is a common mistake that pols world over have been making for a decade or more now. EVERY speech, presentation, quip, or comment is made to ALL potential audiences at the same time and you will be held accountable. That is the joy of our internet-mediated, twittered, polarized world village -- MacLuhan has come true with a vengeance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Some Holy Fathers strayed thus. Just as many were known for their personal piety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Do you have any specific criticism of the story or how it was reported? Factual errors, misquotes, or editorial bias, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Anyway, I wouldn't get to worked up Frag. He isn't saying that Britons should live like Muslims, but that Muslims should go green - which is excruciatingly nauseating in its own right.
It is bias advocation towards islamophobia. Taking the comments out of context, and slapping "Follow the Islamic way!" as the title which is a distortion of the truth compared to the point that was actually being made. It's aim is to fire at the core readership, typically made up of intolerant, ignorant and psuedo-fascist who seem to get a kick about screaming and ranting on something banal as this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
As Hax said, it is typical of the Murdoch branded steam rolls which ruins good journalism.
The islamphilia of the British is absolutely something to get worked up about.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Citing the progressiveness and tolerance of Islam is missing his point. He belongs to the ultra-big CoE, which includes all religions under its roof. Sure, he's the only person who belongs to that wing, but it's still better to understand his view than to mischaracterise it. His view of Englishness isn't our view of Englishness, one in which the rule of law, tolerance of minorities, respect for people's rights, etc. are grounded in secular arguments. His view of Englishness is a society that is grounded in religious principles, and its enemy isn't Islam, but the decay of religious belief. He probably admires the fanaticism of Islamists, whilst finding their specific ideas to be a little odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
And given the popes are Gods man on earth, this would mean that... Nah, I'll just be froody :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
That anyone can make poor choices and sin. Most of us are well-intentioned but hardly infallible. The same holds true for the Holy Fathers; past, present, and future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
How dare you suggest the Borgias were anything but models of piety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
When you put it that way, it's hard to disagree...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I see your point! Just kidding, I think you lost the point in 1870 or so.
Hey Frag, if you so hate "Islamo-Fascism", why don't you put up (or do something else) and go fight the Taliban? I'm sure there are many ways for you to do this.
Not keen?
Then I suppose I should say talk is cheap.
Maybe Fragony thinks that the best way to fight the talibans is to let them starve in their little country, while intellectually laughing at them on the internet (that they probably don't even have access to).Quote:
Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar
I for one would support that.
And if you are in favor of the US troops going all Captain America down there, to bomb civilization to them, explain how 9 years AFTER THE WAR STARTED, we still have 2 teenage girls (in the lower bracket of teen) gets whipped when they fled from their marriage with old guys? This was just in the news.
Great success from the US troops, no? I am glad that the US, in this many years, have come to these wonderful results.
No need for Frag to go all army on them. It hasn't not done any good so far.
Much better to shut their borders and let them live the way they want to, until they face a revolution.
No, Fragony is keen to bitch and moan about Islamo fascism, but when it comes to doing anything worthwhile about it (such as sacrificing your own safety to bring saftey to the blighted people of Afghanistan), I have not seen him sign up to it.
As to you and your clearly disrespectful attitude towards what is actually going on "down there", bollocks. "let them live the way they want to"? What the hell on are you on? I fail to see how anyone could think that the majority of Afghans wish to live under the rule of the Taliban, you would have to be bonkers.
The occupation of Afghanistan, no matter what any wet soft pinko wants to say, has done away with a governenace far worse than anything NATO has installed. If Frag wants to fight Islamo-fascism, he should sign up for a tour of duty, it would put paid to his absurd notions about the true nature of Islam.
And you can catch a ride with him and stop off in Palestine. Good luck with the IDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar
In all seriousness, ignoring the fact that from what I've gathered Frag is all too happy to let the muslims live in medieval bliss as long as they keep it in the Middle East, your statement on its face is as juvenile as it is hypocritical. Are we not allowed to state opinions on the internet if we're not willing to take up arms in support of them? :inquisitive:
Ok, Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar
a 13 and a 14 year old girl were just whipped down there for running away from their forced marriage with way elder men.
This is after 9 years of "war of liberation".
No wait, the war was about finding Usama bin Laden, wasn't it?
Regardless, if the current result is what 9 years of warfare has lead to, I would much rather stay out. We have not found Usama bin Laden, we have not liberated much.
Heck, we have solved world wars in way shorter time than this :)
I feel, however, that we are straying off topic.
I'm joining the British army at the end of this year, as soon as I have finished my Honours course. I speak from the experience of friends who have already served, I doubt they would have much time for the bollocks Frag has posted about Britain and Islam, we are there fighting what he terms "Islamo-fascism" while he tells us we are actually in cahoots with people just like the Taliban.
Yeah, a big middle finger to him too!
Please be advised (again) that personal attacks are not welcome on this forum.
:beadyeyes:
It's quite simple Bopa I am not interested in the Islamic world, but if I get things right you feel I should join a vigilante movement?
I do something about Islam-facism by the way, I financially support an Iranian foundation that saves people from a blue necklace.
Actually, I think you are incorrect. Fragony has spoken sympathy for those who have been oppressed and exploited in the middle east, for example women. I don't think he is heartless or that islamophobic to suggest having people suffer in a medieval bliss. A example of this, is his constant references to Neda and other symbols.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
He is really against hard-line islamic fundamentalism, which pretty much everyone reading this topic would obviously be. However, we all express things in different ways. I am personally more inclined to cultural enlightenment, and dealing with fundamentalism in that way, as I believe the majority of Muslims are not hardline fundamentalists and pretty equal to Christians, Fragony has a more direct approach and believes fundamentalism is a majority movement.
My problem is a reversed one, my problem is the downright creepy respect for the orthodox Islam of the multicultis. They believe in social enginering, and they are making a mistake, they are talking to the wrong people.
edit gracias by the way
I don't think the report was particularly biased, but the responses to this thread are almost (but not quite) as funny as the responses on the Mail website.
What is it exactly that he has done which is so terrible? Is complementing an aspect of one religion so terrible? Perhaps if that religion is Islam. All I see here is rank prejudice (by the dictionary definition of the word).
Is it because he complemented Islam, or is it because he mentioned our climate problems? Something here has obviously hit a nerve, but I'm mystified, and would be grateful to someone who could explain the reasoning.
If you want entertainment, go to the comments section of that website and click worst rated. I've never seen such a reasonable set of statements cause so much spittle to fly.
A rating of - 1600 for someone who dared to say "we are responsible for our actions to humans, animals and the environment alike." Or was it because his name is Mahfooz Hasan ... :inquisitive:
Well I detest the dhimmitude of islamphiles, I detest the fearmongering of the eco-nostra, and I in general detest royals. So yes it strikes a nerve when you see it all united in one public figure who knows absolutely nothing but his comfortable bliss.
lol missed this, want to know where they can find me? Just a pm will do, beers on me.Quote:
Originally Posted by bopa the Magyar
Get over it.:gah: (Not directed at you, Myrddraal.)
Nope that would be asking too much from me, not just for me as you must have noticed by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Wow, I thought the British had some quality newspapers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Actually, the doctrine of infallability very specifically does NOT connote the Holy Father to be without sin -- an all too common misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
As to the wiki quote you used (without citation or linkage I might add), it reads in FULL:
Your specific use of the exact wording chosen by wiki suggests that you "cut-and-pasted" same into your reply. You'd have done better to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki on papal infallibility
Of course, alternatively, I could presume you DID read it and chose to be specifically disengenuous in your citation, but as a Catholic I am called to Christian kindness, forgiveness, and charity, so I'll go with the former.
General advice:
If you are going to snipe at the Catholic Church and/or the Holy Father, at LEAST ratchet up your game a bit and get it right.
Compared to what goes for quality here they really doQuote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
We do. The Guardian, Times, Telegraph (When it's not pretending to be the Daily Fail), Financial Times, Economist (Although that's really just a magazine) and to a lesser extent the Independent are all quality papers. However, there are a lot of rags as well, such as the previously mentioned Daily Mail and Daily Express (Tabloids for the middle class) and the Sun, Daily Star and Mirror are all very low-brow. The key thing about British papers is that they are fiercely partisan, almost to the extent of news channels in the USA, and apart from the Guardian, Mirror and (officially) the Independent all the papers are quite conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
True, true, but nutrition then was such that most women began to menstruate between 12 and 16, age of consumation in Christian and pre-Christian Europe usually being 14 or older. Despite what you might think, our ancestors were not brutes and were not into raping little girls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Did you know that medieval doctors were so convinced a woman had to reach orgasm in order to concieve that pregnancy was considered to make a rape charge inadmissable.
I would say you are partly right. Charles is probably of a brand of Christian that believes God loves all his children, so much so that he will forgive you almost any doctrinal lapse so long as you try to live morally. In other words, he's not pluralistic, he just sees God as extremely tollerant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In any case, it goes without saying that Charles, as a good Protestant Prince, will have read his KJV and come to the conclusion that Christianity is even more environmentally friendly, but doesn't shout it as loud or forcefully (which chimes with his ultra-tollerant God).
So, I suspect, he is indulging rather than endorsing Islam.
Hah! This means that Bopa will now have to fly over to Amersfoort and fight you physically, or else he is not putting up, not willing to put up a fight to back up his internet tough talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Presuming he won't, I guess he is now standing in front of his mirror pulling middle fingers to himself and telling that bloke in the mirror his talk is cheap.
We can only speculate, kidding aside Bopa has my respect wether he wants it or not, good luck
Come on, you know Aisha wanted some old wierd beard. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk