Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2010/10/09 16:42:26
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
a Moderator wrote:I will remind members that religious bigotry is offensive to members and will attract appropriate sanctions under the user posting guidelines.
Further backing up what Orlanth said, i saw an interview on youtube with PZ Myers, and he said that a kid made a video in which he pulled out pages of the Quaran and the Bible and smoked them.... I dont agree with that really, i mean, first of all cos its not funny, and secondly, its just needlessly rude, but anyway.
The Christians didnt kick up much of a fuss at all, but the Muslim comminity got extremely offended by it, and said video has since been pulled.
Ask yourself another question, if a bloke announced he was going to burn 200 bibles at his local community centre because he felt like it, would Christians kick up half the fuss that the muslims did with our wacky pastor? Would the president get involved?!
We all know the answer to that question.
I have a distaste for anybody that allows their own religious convicitions dictate their actions, but my reasons for disliking Islam more than the other monotheisms are glaringly obvious.
The more offended you act, the less likely you are to draw attention to your actions for fear of reprisals, the Muslims dont take things half as gracefully as the Christians do for the very reason that they want to be immune from criticism. Is this the relationship they want with the rest of the world?
Why did CNN blur out the images of Mohammed? Was it because they didnt want to appear insulting or because they feared remifications?
We are being bent over by the followers of Islam, and people need to open their eyes and see what is occuring, Europe would be worse off without people like Wilders, who is literally putting his life on the line for the greater good.
I salute his bravery, we are dealing with people that actally will kill you, Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and countless others are proof of this, and no matter how much the left leaning apologists pander to the Muslim minority and try to make 2+2=5 in order to advance their belief system, people can clearly see what is going on.
We are being misled and large well funded orginisations are at work in Europe to try and assist Islamonazis in their efforts.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/10/09 19:47:14
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Kilkrazy wrote:Why would town planning demand the banning of minarets but not other tall structures?
I know that many Muslims see these examples as repressions of their religion because they say so.
If I, a white, middle-class CofE member can see these laws as repressive, what do you think the effect on the people affected is likely to be?
Why would town planning demand the banning of minarets but not other tall structures?
The Swiss generally dont want tall buldings, as do many cities, the taller a building the more it is to be set in with the environment around it. The Swiss decided that minarets are not part of their civic culture, get over it. You will find that they block skyscrapers too. As skyscrapers are not part of any relgion noone whines that they are being repressed.
Massed planning decisions are not uncommon. For example In London if you live in a period Georgian house whether as a house hotel business or whatever there is only a very select shortlist of colours you can paint that bulding. The colours permitted are white, grey (I think there are two acceptible grey shades) or light pink, the traditional colours. This is not petty, its preserving the architectural culture of a region.
I know that many Muslims see these examples as repressions of their religion because they say so.
Moslems say a lot of things, they ask for Islamic law in European countries. they asked for Islamic law in Bradford since the 1980's, the tactic is less stupid than it sounds, yes they werre lkaughed away, but they continue to ask. Two years ago Gordon 'spineless' Brown gave them what they wanted and Islamic civic courts are now available. If you think the moslems are happy to stop there you are deluded.
Moslems ask for veterans martches to be cancelled because they represent 'oppression'.
I have heard of Moslem shoppers making complaint if the till staff wear Help for Heroes wristbands.
I have heard of Moslems complaining to the police about people preaching the gospel on the steps of a cathedral. The preachers were put on trial, thnakfully the judge threw out the case.
Meanwhile they can preach calls for jihad on the streets of our towns.
There is a sort of pattern here that means if Moslems complain because Swiss think minarets dont belong in their culture I am willing to ignore that. Its pretty clear that if they had their way in time they would be complaining that the churches in Switzerland were not yet closed. That is what happens in Islamic countries, and try not to be deluded, that is what they want here. Many dont even attempt to hide it.
One thing I dont hear them ask is 'how best can we integrate'.
If I, a white, middle-class CofE member can see these laws as repressive, what do you think the effect on the people affected is likely to be?
Sorry, I dont think you 'see' anything. White middle class CoE, that fits the profile for New Labour PC brainwashing straight up. I had one of those idiot New Labour priests tell me face up that it was not possible to be a Christian unless one was also a socialist, honest truth. You are aware that the previous government would not promote bishiops unless they adhered to PC dogma, and ahem 'closeness to the Labour party was a quiet requirement for promotion. Whether a propsective bishop they beleived in Christianity wasnt important, if they beleived in Blair, that was relevant.
The laws from Swizterland and France are not oppressive, but forward thinking. They have the courage to make small steps early rather than sit behind a wall of dogma claim rights and freedom and wait until a much harder respeonce is required later. The Uk is a country where westernised doctors, you know the poeple that do operations and swerar oaths of non violence and peaceful healing because suicide bombers trying to blow up Glasgow airport.
Please remember the PC blinkers, radical Islam most be STOPPEd and that is best done by saying regardless of PC claims you cannot cross certain lines.
Even New Labour stopped Islam in some respects, female circumcision was brutal enough that even the most blinkered PC idiot saw it for the evil it was, it was admittedly rare anyway but was the dfate of a number of Uk citizens allowed to travel abroad to countries where womens rights are completely inevident. However while paedophilia is our one remaining true taboo the authorities look the other way over underage arranged marriages concerning UK born citizens. Sorry I dont care if they are following 'their culture', a 14 year old Anglo-Pakistani girl should not be married off abroad, and if the fethers return the husband should be treated the same as Glitter.
Burkhas, female circumcision, underage arranged marriages, the 'three obediences'. All these add up to a brutal system of female oppression. Some might want to prevent offending the sensibilities of brutal medivalists, but is it not also 'equal opportunities friendly' to oppose them vehemently. I am hasppy to offend as many PC idiots and Islamic fanatics as I need to to prevent statutory rape of Europeanised girls, or worse having their bits removed so that they become supposedly more submissive to their husbands, nor should we permit medievalised oppressors from forcing women to wear clothing similar to that normally worn in clinical or hazardous conditions.
Other than protective wear no clothing resembles the burkha, no fashion emulates it, no culture wants it except to oppress and constrict its female population. perhaps if I want this oppressive garment banned I am more freedom loving and ironically more defacto 'politically correct' than the appeasing dogmatists who want it preserved to keep Islamic hardliners happy in the name of equality and diversity. Me, politically correct, I need a bath.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/09 20:41:47
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/09 20:26:02
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Kilkrazy wrote:
How many abortion clinic staff have been attacked or killed by Christians in the USA?
I dont know, quite a few. The big difference is that
1. A lot of the abortion attackers are labelled 'Christian', they are often just pro-lifers, which is not necessarily the same. I personally beleive that Christians, if you can call them such, are actually a minority amongst pro-life terrorists. Pro-life terrorism follows the same cultural profile as animal rights terrorism. Saving unborn babies and saving tortured animals - by acts of terror, appeals to the same sort of person, who need not be a nominal Christian, its just easier for church bashers to assume they are.
2. Christians abhor these attacks, and church leaders and congregations unite condemn them quickly, openly and publically.
3. Christians do however often lobby and protest outside abortion clinics. This is possibly how bigots like to get the idea that the terrorists are therefore also predominantly Christian. Protest is lawful and as abortion is a tricky issue: a child is being killed. The bits that come out of a late abortion are very clearly identifiably a human child, it is simply a hot topic whether the child should be considered a human being with rights, abortuion limits are arbitrary based on cultural convenience not any actual scientific transition delimiter between group of cells to human. Whether one is pro or anti abortion is personal, there is a fair logic behind both arguments, essentially it boils down to whose human rights matter more. Therefore so long as one group is unhappy with the law as it stands peaceful proterst is an acceptible method of raising objection in a democratic society.
4. Christianity in the southern states of the USA is different if not all from most other cultural regions. The sort of crap so called Christians get up to there would not be tolerated at all elsewhere.
On the other hand echoing comments
1. The attacks targeted by Islamic militancy is very clearly actions of Islamic militancy. Non Christian pro-life groups hit abortion clinuics, you dont see non Islamic fanatics killing cartoonists.
2. The most important point. Moslems even moderate ones very rarely do or say anything to condemn Islamic fundamentalist violence. Abortion clinic bombings when linked to extremist 'Christians' are very quickly and vocally condemned by all Christian ministers except for the nutjobs themselves, who are a tiny minority. I put 'Christian' in brackets because the churches disown these people, only the bashers not the churches consider these people our brothers.
Meanwhile you have to ask a lot to get a moderate Moslem community leaderr or preist to condemn a suicide bombing honour killing or blasphemy killing. The most the BBC could get out of the community leaderx after 7/7 was something on the lines of 'we are against all violence'. Specific condemnation was never forthcoming, beyond the words of one or two very liberal Moslems priests, and they not the fundamentalists appear to be more on the outside.
3. Yes Moslems protest thier issues too. we in the west are normally happy to allow Moslems to protest outside a US or Israeli embassy, we might even join them. Some issues like abortion also affect Moslem activisits too.
4. Fundamentalist Islam is not restricted to a whacky subgroup of Moslems in isolation from all others. You get strong fundamentalist Islamic elemnents (I cant call them minorities everywhere) globally. You get governments who make the laws these fundamentalists want, and woe betide anyone of a foreign faith who as much as disagrees.
Kilkrazy wrote:
That doesn't excuse Islamic extremism, but it does show that extremism isn't exclusive to Islam.
Extremism isnt exclusive to Islam. I agree, but dumb appeasement wasnt exclusive to Chamberlain.
Accounts of Christian or Buddhit terrorism are very rare; dumb appeasers of Islam who hope that if they make the west PC enough Moslem citizens will play by our rules, they are a real problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/09 20:37:21
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/09 20:39:03
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
I have in mind people like Timothy McVeigh and the IRA.
I dont know what you are saying here.
However I am wondering you do either.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/09 20:54:10
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Kilkrazy wrote:You seem to be blaming religion for terrorism.
All terrorists aren't motivated by religious causes.
I am asking if you think religiously uninspired terrorism is better than religiously inspired terrorism.
You still dont make sense.
No form of terrorism is referable as none is acceptable.
I never blamed religion for terrorism, why would I. This is the sort of argument of dumber atheists: religion = terrorism and hatred => ban them all.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/10 02:22:46
Subject: Re:Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Orlanth wrote:Islam however is not here to share, it wants its way, all day and is willing to kill to get it.
How does that work with this?
You still dont make sense.
No form of terrorism is referable as none is acceptable.
I never blamed religion for terrorism, why would I. This is the sort of argument of dumber atheists: religion = terrorism and hatred => ban them all.
That is a very strange line you are drawing, but whatever. In my opinion you rather disingenuously changed your objective. Muslims are violent and willing to kill (what images does that bring to mind? Hmm...), BUT somehow Islam is not the cause of that. Why would one bring religion into this at all when discussing terrorism unless your goals are to tie the two concepts together?
You have made your opinion clear in saying that you consider all of this PC nonsense. You're a bit hard to understand, but I think that is mainly for the fact that you don't actually want to be clear. A lot of information in your posts has taken the form of very distinct talking points that come from specific news outlets. Geert Wilders is a politician. Dude ain't a freaking saint; that is for fething sure.
Geert Wilders from what I have read, is a pretty smart guy. He was not always this extreme, and as the guy IS a politician there are few reasons why he would make that decision. Even with all of that I feel that he should not be on trial right now even if I very strongly disagree with what I consider blatant nonsense on his part.
To the point of the Burkha banning; why ban that garment specifically when other more generalized bans could be put in place. I was under the impression that previous regulation was already enforced. It doesn't make sense that the ban would really be for anything besides sending a message that has an awful lot to do with immigration.
Hmm...
There is a sort of pattern here that means if Moslems complain because Swiss think minarets dont belong in their culture I am willing to ignore that. Its pretty clear that if they had their way in time they would be complaining that the churches in Switzerland were not yet closed. That is what happens in Islamic countries, and try not to be deluded, that is what they want here. Many dont even attempt to hide it.
How can you say this? What fething logic or statistics are you using to arrive at that conclusion. In my fething opinion you're not using either. You're using stupid headlines that feed your base desires. Your preconceptions are likely playing a large part in this, and I am not saying that to suggest you are racist, because that is also stupid in this context. Islam is not a race and it sure as hell doesn't fit into the tiny little box that you are trying to stuff it into. That box is your preferred television, newspapers, and internet sources.
The Italians want all spaghetti sauce to be made with the correct ingredients. Except they don't. At all. Some do, but not all and not even a significant portion.
The Chinese want to eat your cat.
The Russians just want vodka.
None of those apply.
The Christians want A.
The Muslims want B.
The Buddhists want C.
Except that is wrong. Those are massive groups of people. Hundreds of millions of people and all you can see is the extremists from one section. Point at them some more and see how much it helps your argument.
Who in the hell says that most large-scale news outlets give half a damn what moderate Muslims think?
Guess what, they don't fething care. Hence, large-scale outlets don't really listen, and in turn do not allow.
Orlanth wrote:I never blamed religion for terrorism, why would I. This is the sort of argument of dumber atheists: religion = terrorism and hatred => ban them all.
You're right. We should probably just ban Islam. Fair is fair. WE HAVE PICTURES OF LIKE TEN GUYS PROTESTING STUFF ON THE STREETS OF ENGLAND.
MAINTAIN THE FEAR.
This whole conversation is skewed in the west's favor when discussed in the west. Nothing surprising about that at all. Carry on.
Oh, this too. Don't let me ruin your line of attack though. Wouldn't want anyone to do objective research or anything...
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2010/10/10 05:47:00
2010/10/10 09:48:49
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Orlanth wrote:Islam however is not here to share, it wants its way, all day and is willing to kill to get it.
How does that work with this?
You still dont make sense.
No form of terrorism is referable as none is acceptable.
I never blamed religion for terrorism, why would I. This is the sort of argument of dumber atheists: religion = terrorism and hatred => ban them all.
Why does it need to. Two completely seperate comments.
Wrexasaur wrote:
That is a very strange line you are drawing, but whatever. In my opinion you rather disingenuously changed your objective. Muslims are violent and willing to kill (what images does that bring to mind? Hmm...), BUT somehow Islam is not the cause of that. Why would one bring religion into this at all when discussing terrorism unless your goals are to tie the two concepts together?
Where did I say or imply anything to give you that conclusion. Not changed my objective, which is the open critique of militant Islam and the defence of some laws to halt the spread of Islamisation in France and Switzerland. Not to mention a broad agreement that Wilders has a point, and is in the courts because some people hope that point will go away if everyone remains PC and sticks their head in the ground.
Wrexasaur wrote:
You have made your opinion clear in saying that you consider all of this PC nonsense. You're a bit hard to understand, but I think that is mainly for the fact that you don't actually want to be clear. A lot of information in your posts has taken the form of very distinct talking points that come from specific news outlets. Geert Wilders is a politician. Dude ain't a freaking saint; that is for fething sure.
I have been prefectly clear:
Militant Islam is a threat - the only ones trying to muddy that truth are the PC apolgoists who constantly ask for more proof. In Glasgow we had doctors radicalised to be suicide bombers. as doctors are educated and part of a profession that has expectations of the highest moral code, do no harm etc. To convert people like that ijnto suicide bombers even once means there is something insidiuous going on. This is a fact, and can only be unclear to someone who is either a complete idiot, or just doesnt want to see the truth, and the politically correct are very often a subset of both.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Geert Wilders from what I have read, is a pretty smart guy. He was not always this extreme, and as the guy IS a politician there are few reasons why he would make that decision. Even with all of that I feel that he should not be on trial right now even if I very strongly disagree with what I consider blatant nonsense on his part.
Wrexasaur wrote:
To the point of the Burkha banning; why ban that garment specifically when other more generalized bans could be put in place. I was under the impression that previous regulation was already enforced. It doesn't make sense that the ban would really be for anything besides sending a message that has an awful lot to do with immigration.
How do you draw that conclusion. If it wass an attempt to curb immigration it wouldnt work. Plenty come over in hijabs, or the males come over, settle and get permits to immigrate the family.
If, (and it isnt) banning burkhas was just a rile against immigration, it wouldnt work.
What I wrote made sense, its your atempt to re-interpret it that makes no sense.
The problem is you are trying to put forward the idea that the anti-immigration lobby are kneejerking, while in actuality its the PC appeasers. PC appeasers can wail as much as they like, their dogmas can no longer cover up the hard fact that cartoonists are getting killed for depicting Mohammed, women are getting killed in honour killings, wester raised Islamic passpoert holders are becoming suicide bombers even from professions such as medicine. Meanwhile Islamists are often vocally complaining about our culture and society demanding we stop doing what they dont like. Such actions as honouring our dead soldiers, not approving Islamic law, and allowing people to walk their dogs on the same stereet where someone converted their home into a mosque. etc etc....
Hmm...
Wrexasaur wrote:
How can you say this? What fething logic or statistics are you using to arrive at that conclusion. In my fething opinion you're not using either. You're using stupid headlines that feed your base desires. Your preconceptions are likely playing a large part in this, and I am not saying that to suggest you are racist, because that is also stupid in this context. Islam is not a race and it sure as hell doesn't fit into the tiny little box that you are trying to stuff it into. That box is your preferred television, newspapers, and internet sources.
I am better informed than you think. The Minaret ban is logical because planning issues like that are commonoplace.
I gave a good example. The fact that you can only paint houses of a certain architectural style a certain colour in Central London. This is a flat rule, it might seem pety, why cant I paint my house blue if I want? Because we collectively say you cannot.
The reasons for a Minaret ban were openly stated, minarets change the architectural context of a town. A swiss town with minarets has not longer a traditional image of a swiss town. The Swiss decided to preserve their heritasge by saying Swirss towns will look as they used to. However you can have a mosque, so long as it looks like 'a building that belongs in Switzerland'.
The logic I am using is called TOWN PLANNING. Look it up, its not a 'myth' town planning departments occur in most towns and cities in the western world, and keeping a architectural or cultureal heritage uis a very often a policy of town planning. Switzerland went a step further and stopped rthe building of minarets anywhere as the imagery was un-Swiss. This is not an unusual move for Switzerland, thwe Swiss are very architecturally conservative, they like their towns the way they are. Why should you say they cannot? There is comfort in knowing that the town you grew up in looks more or less the same as when your grandfather lived there. Someone wants to build a minaret, that would change all that. The Swiss say no. You can have your mosque, you can keep your own faith, but you wont change our town.
Is that so hard to understand, is that 'wrong'.
If it is go to the many places where you cannot build a church at all, no matter what it looks like, and remember the cold hard fact a large number of Moslems openly claim the want the rest of the world to eventually be like that and are working towards that here and now.
Wrexasaur wrote:
.<garbled>......Except that is wrong.......
It might be wrong, who cares, its not what I was claiming so it says absolutely nothing about my arguments.
Wrexasaur wrote:
You're right. We should probably just ban Islam. Fair is fair. WE HAVE PICTURES OF LIKE TEN GUYS PROTESTING STUFF ON THE STREETS OF ENGLAND.
Thankyou I am right, but not about what your on about.
Ban Islam? never said or implied that. Pictures of ten guys protesting. Not mentioned that either. Protesting is usually fine, in any numbers. Its whe they start blowing up busses becase we arent yet moslems. That bit I dont like, and its a feth of a lot more than ten of em.
Wrexasaur wrote:
MAINTAIN THE FEAR. Oh, this too. Don't let me ruin your line of attack though. Wouldn't want anyone to do objective research or anything...
Lets lump these two bits of nonsense together.
How much research do you need me to do? 7/7 bombings - fact. Glasgow bombing - fact. Radical Islam movements have held press conferences calling for Sharia Law in the UK - fact. Radical Islam movements have held press conferences calling for population bombing (Islamic women must have more children to create an Islamic majority) - fact. The list goes on. I have copies of fliers handed out in the streets of my town calling for mandatory Islamic dress and jihad against Israel and jihad against the USA.
Just because we wont give in to these outrageous demands and just because the plans may not be workable (breeding an hardline Islamic demographic majority) doesnt mean we shouldnt openly consider them threats.
Radical Islam is bad for your health, and your freedom. This isnt a scare story, it isnt a myth, it isnt an exagerration, its the fething truth.
The real fear mongering comes from:
1. Terrorism. -- What else are bombings there to do.
2. PC dogmatists. -- If you dont adhere to PC dogma and stop seeing Islam as a potential problem we will hysterically label you a bigot/racist/whatever-phobe and ruin your career if you are in media or government service. also it doesnt matter how many bombings occur, it's all 'hearsay' gottit.
So what happens if we all get PC and nice and stay out of it all.
Madrid train bombing 191 people dead. Spain had already declared a troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Theo Van Gogh. Murdered for daring to criticise Islam in Holland where free speech is traditionally respected.
Salman Rushdie, intellectual and author under sentence of death since the 1980's by an extra judicial Islamic court for criticising Islam.
Glasgow airport bombing 2007. A failed attack by two doctors. The incendiary device partly detonated prematurely spilling one burning terrorist onto the street, he was kicked to the ground by a local and arrested. The other one didnt get out the car in time.
Bilal Abdulla the surviving Glasgow airport bomber. Abdullah was born in the UK, (no IDF boot on his face) his father was also a doctor practicing in the UK. (No oppressed deprived poverty stricken childhood then) Abdullah trained as a doctor in the UK and in Baghdad (not a born yesterday illiterate then, also the doctors oath thing is normally taken seriosuly)
This last one is a clincher. No matter how much the PC lobby whine, browbeat people for being 'insufficiently diversity aware' or try to force the blinkers on, it shouldnt be enough to stop the fair and logical realisation that any dogma capable of turning a western raised doctor into a sucide bomber is the moral equavalent of the T-virus.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2010/10/10 13:19:42
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/10 14:28:06
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Kilkrazy wrote:I fail to see how banning minarets in Switzerland will discourage extremist suicide bombers.
You dont fail to see, you fail to read.
Try reading the thread before you post stuff like that.
Noone claimed that banning minarets discourages suicide bombings. Those two issues are seperate, even if they appear on the same post.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/10 16:19:46
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
I dont think ive ever agreed with anything you ever wrote before more Orlanth.
There most certainly is something insidious going on, well financed groups are leaning on the government and applying societal pressures to further their own means under our very noses, but people dont want to mention it for fear of offending our attackers.
Shame on them as they do this.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/10/10 16:47:44
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Kilkrazy wrote:I fail to see how banning minarets in Switzerland will discourage extremist suicide bombers.
You dont fail to see, you fail to read.
Try reading the thread before you post stuff like that.
Noone claimed that banning minarets discourages suicide bombings. Those two issues are seperate, even if they appear on the same post.
So why are you worried about minarets?
Was I?
No I wasnt.
Read the thread yet.? No. Read it and you will find I am not 'worried' about minarets.
Bottom line:
1. The Swiss dont want them for solid cultural reasons.
2. PC apologists are trying to use this as 'evidence' of Islamophobia.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/11 00:25:51
Subject: Re:Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Yo Orlanth, as long as you are online right now could you just clarify a few things for me?
It is possible that I am used to arguments against terrorism being turned into an attack on massive amounts of people. I do not mean to ignore that terrorism does exist and does pose a threat.
I posted several clips simply saying that there is conversation going on from both sides. That includes what I consider to be a very small group of extremists on both sides. In my opinion some of the rhetoric surrounding this issue is intentionally volatile from both sides. I apologize if I reacted to your posts without asking more questions about your position.
Orlanth wrote:Radical Islam is bad for your health, and your freedom. This isnt a scare story, it isnt a myth, it isnt an exagerration, its the fething truth.
This is your main point. Right?
The real fear mongering comes from:
1. Terrorism. -- What else are bombings there to do.
Insert clip of repetitive messaging by Bush in support of the war.
2. PC dogmatists. -- If you dont adhere to PC dogma and stop seeing Islam as a potential problem we will hysterically label you a bigot/racist/whatever-phobe and ruin your career if you are in media or government service. also it doesnt matter how many bombings occur, it's all 'hearsay' gottit.
Can you just give me a link to a list of the terrorist actions that have occurred?
There is a very fair point to be made about the proportion of terrorist actions from extremists as compared to our reaction as international powers. I'll ignore the point about being called a PC moron. I would actually like to hear your points made without interference from my side. I don't actually believe this issue is split into two opinions, but that I'll ignore as well.
I would just like to see a list of the terrorist acts committed by extremists, as compared to actions taken by similar groups. I am trying to seperate your statements from those that I have already heard in this thread. Statements about beards and dresses and such.
2010/10/11 02:17:17
Subject: Re:Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Orlanth wrote:Radical Islam is bad for your health, and your freedom. This isnt a scare story, it isnt a myth, it isnt an exagerration, its the fething truth.
This is your main point. Right?
I said more, but yes I suppose that is a fairly good summary.
Wrexasaur wrote:
The real fear mongering comes from:
1. Terrorism. -- What else are bombings there to do.
Insert clip of repetitive messaging by Bush in support of the war.
I dont really include what Bush said and did. He used the presence of an Islamic extremist threat for his own ends, they werent exactly responsses to terror more opportunities from terror.
Wrexasaur wrote:
2. PC dogmatists. -- If you dont adhere to PC dogma and stop seeing Islam as a potential problem we will hysterically label you a bigot/racist/whatever-phobe and ruin your career if you are in media or government service. also it doesnt matter how many bombings occur, it's all 'hearsay' gottit.
Can you just give me a link to a list of the terrorist actions that have occurred?
No. I dont tally them. I remember some and commented on them.
Big ones recently are 9/11, 7/7, Madrid and Bali. However these are known because lots of westerners died. Militant Islam sometimes doesnt really care who it kills to make its point, including other Moslems, in large numbers. I dont include Lockerbie as that is not part of the current 'wave', the causes of Lockerbie have been (mostly) addressed.
One of the reaon I dont tally them is because its a tip of the iceberg, also the public dont know what is going on. MI5, FBI and other agencies are working overtime on this, and due to the high level of competence of these agencies I suspect that most bombing campaigns are stillborn. Occassionally we hear reports in the press of arrests or bombs and chemicals found, it is not unlikely that the security services dont let on even a fraction of the figures. Though of course I have nothing to base this on except the is logic to suggest that sometimes it might be best to deal with issues like this quietly.
Even this month word reached the press of a plot to hit France Germany and the UK, the reports to the press were sketchy at best for all sorts of reasons which should be obvious. I dont even think the varuious agencies involved would agree to say even that much unless there was an advantage in doing so.
To cut back to basics. we can see enough evidence of Islamic extremist threat to European countries from previous attacks, statements of intent from exteremist groups and warnings from security agencies. I havent talied it, but its a 'lot'. There has to be a lot more behind that which we dont see so any figurwe or lists I can compile from p[ublic data is largely useless anyway except to say 'its worse than this:'.
Wrexasaur wrote:
There is a very fair point to be made about the proportion of terrorist actions from extremists as compared to our reaction as international powers.
Fair enough. terrosrm can be useful as it changes policy, this doesnt mean those who take advantage of it are culpable of it. To take a Case study example: There were two clear 'winners' from 9/11. Israel and the UK.
Israel got a lot of fresh support which had been dwindling due to poor treatment of the Palestinains.
The UK profited because for the first time people in the US understood what terrorism was actually about, realised it wasnt 'heroic struggle' and very quickly stopped putting money into IRA coffers and stopped tolerating terrorist leaders when they came to New York and Boston. Until 9/11 the IRA only paid lip service to the 1997 ceasefire, mainly because still maintained a veneer of ligitimacy by openly garnered poltical support from the US Irish community, who for the most part are woefully ignorant of the nature of the Troubles. 9;/11 was a huge wake up call, and Financial and politcal support was pretty cut to practically nothing very quickly after.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I'll ignore the point about being called a PC moron. I would actually like to hear your points made without interference from my side. I don't actually believe this issue is split into two opinions, but that I'll ignore as well.
While I responded to you, my concdemnation of PC dogma is more universal, its a grenade labelled to whome it may concern. Political correcrtness is devisive and grossly hypocritical, PC enables some and disables others mainly in order to change a demographic. PC means many rights become wrong and many wrong become inalienable rights., PC means you can get hundreds of thousands of pounds or dollars for being made upset if you are a member of an inferred political minority. Yet companies can treat members of the supposed political majority very badly and get away with it. I have seen first hand people forced into constructive dismissal or treated unfairly at work knowing full well at if the person was female or of a different colour or sexuality they could call 'discrimination' and get a swift settlement and a public lawyer, but get neither because they are not.
Beyond the hypocritical lobsided application of rights that defines current political correctness is the even more insidious evil of labelling. If you do or say what the PC lobby dont like you are a '-----ist' or a '------ophobe'. The merits of your arguement, whether or not there are any, become irrelevant, you are a blasnkly labelled a bigot to be challenged, and with true PC hypocrasy society is enabled to be bigotted towards you and have no obligation to listen to anything you have to say before condemning you. Its Orwellian in its insidiousness. It stiffles debate, and replaces reason and understanding with accusation and derision, all in ther blatantly hypocritical name of equality and fairness.
Rarely is PC more evil than when the minority it seeks to empower on its own behalf uses the politcal structure of PC to undermine our society. Islamic militants are very happy to play the equalities card, and PC dogmatised societies like the Uik are often quick to leap to proove their openmindedness to multi culturalism by stomping on the suspected offender. Post Blair this is declining, the ConLib alliance doesnt want to play by these rules anymore, and some militants got a rude shock when trying out demands that used to get the police at their beck and call.
Not long ago, if you vocally or visually backed the Armed Forces you risked being censured for 'causing offence' by the police on behalf of the Moslems. In recent cases when this was tried the complainers were told to be more tolerant. Slowly but surely PC is on the way out but its death thoes will be long, and all too many high officials are still contasminated by PC dogma, after all New Labour wouldnt promote you if you didnt swallow and spout the dogmas they liked irregardless of the supposed party political impartiality the Civil Service is supposed to have.
I have been saying this for years here on Dakka. Back two or three years ago comments like this got a huge barrage by PC idiots who had swallowed the dogmas, called any challenge 'hearsay' and made flat demands for proof while requiring of themselves little or no burden of proof to apply the PC shotgun defence of a blanket accusation of bigotry. The proof is found by opening your eyes and seeing our society. Slowly society is seeing what I saw, and comments like this are no longer challenged but cheered. But there are still some who beleive in PC, and why not: By its intentuions PC is there to bring equality and fairness, but looks are deceiving, the actual application of PC is anything but fair or equal. This is why I vehemently oppose it, and challenge those who are still blinded by the supposed intention of PC to see that it actually does the opposite to the benefits it is supposed to bring.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I am trying to seperate your statements from those that I have already heard in this thread. Statements about beards and dresses and such.
Getting at Moslems because they look different to us would be unfair and bigoted. Beard no berard I dont care, its up to them, not me. Burkha or no burkha I do care about because the Burkha is designed to oppress women and raises security concerns over publically identifying people. Bomb or no bomb, thats very relevant.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/10/11 02:26:31
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/11 02:40:33
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Kilkrazy wrote:"I saw a video on YouTube where some guy said something about something" isn't exactly a rigorous, convincing analysis of the spirit of the age.
How many abortion clinic staff have been attacked or killed by Christians in the USA?
That doesn't excuse Islamic extremism, but it does show that extremism isn't exclusive to Islam.
Last time I checked, Christians were outraged by those bombings. Unlike the so called moderate Muslims who have expressed very little sympathy towards the victims of Islamic terrorists.
Thank you for your response Orlanth. It appears we just disagree on a few things.
Last time I checked, Christians were outraged by those bombings. Unlike the so called moderate Muslims who have expressed very little sympathy towards the victims of Islamic terrorists.
Last time I checked Muslims were killed on 9/11 and moderate Muslims are often the targets of extremist terrorism.
The so called moderate Muslims are being ignored by the some of the farthest reaching news outlets our tiny little planet has to offer. If you take a bit of time to look into this you'll find that there is plenty of condemnation from the Muslim community. It isn't a matter of existence; this is a matter of listening to multiple viewpoints. Often that means that you should probably do a bit more research of your own.
From what I have found there is more than enough reaction from the Muslim community to merit at least a second look into the situation. It is much simpler to pretend that moderates don't exist. Agreed.
Take a look at the sides presented on nearly every large issue that the large-scale media covers. Guess what, they make money off of the loudest most controversial voices. They have a financial incentive to ignore what I consider likely to be the largest voice on many issues. They just want the most controversial.
Money talks, bs walks. Now, by bs I do mean reasonable opinions that when taken into the spotlight are demeaned as delusional and unrepresentative.
We demand reasonable discourse in mainstream journalism! LOL. I'd rather get my news from more reliable outlets in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/11 03:00:11
2010/10/11 04:47:17
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
egor71 wrote:
New laws are passed to restrict military might as we speak, I guess EU news is rather slow in the US.
No, Erdogan, among others (including secularists, that whole EU bid has significantly affected the balance of power), have been discussing such measures; nothing has been passed.
What concerns me reagrding your comment is:
1) Turkey is not a member of the EU.
2) You seem to be using your emotion as means of carrying an inference regarding what is going to happen. This marks you as a poor observer in my mind.
egor71 wrote:
Scared infidels defend the islam, I'm just vigilant!
Vigilance involves fabricating evidence for your position?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
Last time I checked, Christians were outraged by those bombings. Unlike the so called moderate Muslims who have expressed very little sympathy towards the victims of Islamic terrorists.
I assume by 'Christians' you mean 'some Christians' as, were you to mean all Christians, your comment would either be necessarily false, or a case of No True Scotsman; given that the bombers were almost always Christians.
As far as Islam and sympathy are concerned, one would think that the various reaction to 9/11 would dispute your point. Unless you're focusing more on the commendatory responses than the critical ones due to an emotional temperament?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/10/11 04:51:04
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2010/10/11 05:30:11
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
dogma wrote:
I assume by 'Christians' you mean 'some Christians' as, were you to mean all Christians, your comment would either be necessarily false, or a case of No True Scotsman;
I dont think we need to go into mathematical subsets when dealing with human people groups, which are inhernetly flexible.
dogma wrote:
given that the bombers were almost always Christians.
That is not a given. Most if not almost all aborion clinic bomber was kicked out of or not attending any minstream church.
Of the two billion plus Christinas on the planet only as tiny sliver of a minority conduct abert or support these actuions, and almost all of them are in fringe groups that the majority do not consider Christian at all. In the odd exception case the church the terrorist attends is usualkly unaware of the attendees actions, and in any case is usually very swift to condemn therm.
Christians get tarred with this brush because Christians do protest at abortion clinincs, and of course because it makes good copy to assume such evil practice is inherent to the some churches.
Up to a point the same is said of Islam, but the percentages involved are far more evenly spread between the militanrts and the nonm militant majority.
dogma wrote:
As far as Islam and sympathy are concerned, one would think that the various reaction to 9/11 would dispute your point. Unless you're focusing more on the commendatory responses than the critical ones due to an emotional temperament?
This is true, but again the balance between supporters and critics of Ilslamic fundamentalism is far less marked. Not only do many more support terrorism as opposed to a very slender minority of non Moslems supporting terrorism carried out be people in the name of their Gods, those who speak against it often do so with extreme reluctance, or try to offset condemnation by linking Islamic violence with other violence or simplt condemn terrorism tactically rather than for any goodwill *cough* Arafat *cough*.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2010/10/11 05:45:52
Subject: Re:Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Orlanth wrote:Up to a point the same is said of Islam, but the percentages involved are far more evenly spread between the militanrts and the nonm militant majority.
Based on what statistics?
I am genuinely curious, and would appreciate if you could share that. Nearly all of the information I have looked into on this is very murky. It isn't as clear as you suggest.
I don't honestly think it is up to a certain point. I think it is practically the same thing. Nothing surprising about that at all.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/10/11 05:46:59
2010/10/11 06:02:52
Subject: Dutch Politician on trial for comparing Islam to Naziism
Orlanth wrote:
I dont think we need to go into mathematical subsets when dealing with human people groups, which are inhernetly flexible.
I disagree entirely. If you aren't prepared to provide either statistical, or definitional information, then any statement regarding the whole of a broad category should be held in reservation.
Orlanth wrote:
That is not a given. Most if not almost all aborion clinic bomber was kicked out of or not attending any minstream church.
That has nothing to do with whether or not they were Christian. We can play games regarding what we want people to be, but at the end of the day that just leaves us in a dance around a posteriori fallacies.
Orlanth wrote:
Of the two billion plus Christinas on the planet only as tiny sliver of a minority conduct abert or support these actuions, and almost all of them are in fringe groups that the majority do not consider Christian at all. In the odd exception case the church the terrorist attends is usualkly unaware of the attendees actions, and in any case is usually very swift to condemn therm.
That's nice, but I never said that all Christians were bad people because some Christians did bad things. In fact, my point was very clearly directed against someone who made the opposite point with respect to Islam.
Orlanth wrote:
This is true, but again the balance between supporters and critics of Ilslamic fundamentalism is far less marked. Not only do many more support terrorism as opposed to a very slender minority of non Moslems supporting terrorism carried out be people in the name of their Gods, those who speak against it often do so with extreme reluctance, or try to offset condemnation by linking Islamic violence with other violence or simplt condemn terrorism tactically rather than for any goodwill *cough* Arafat *cough*.
First, numbers or I'm not interested. I don't care to discuss these things in a qualitative sense, it is all to easy for demagogues to come to he fore, even by accident.
Otherwise, it doesn't help that the majority of these people are subject to military oppression, or lacking militaries altogether.
Its fun to play category games when you have supremacy, but it doesn't really get at what goes on in the world.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
but not about what your on about. 
