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.

mattyrm wrote:Sensible opinions?! haha! And thus we see the problem. This is why i skim over pretty much everything you write.

Im hardly a "right wing nut" am i? I am just more right of centre than you, and yes again, you reply to anything i type with "you're wrong" when we arent arguing about a mathematical problem or the location of a capital city, were talking about opinions here, and i am of the opinion that we need to use less carrot and more stick with regards to Islam as i feel we have appeased it plenty already to no avail.

You're not a nut in general, just on this issue. Well, and religion.

But to you, its just "right" and "wrong" with regards to peoples thoughts, and anybody who disagrees with you is "wrong" and you have to "bring me around to sensible opinions"

No, there isn't just right and wrong. There's all kinds of scope and space for points of view and differing forms of reasoning, but accepting that and wanting to hear all kinds of different opinions doesn't mean that some really are just plain wrong.

There used to be a time when it was only the far fringes of the left wing that embraced the idea there was no truth and only points of view. Unfortunately that kind of fuzzy non-thought has spread out and it seems to up everytime someone finds themselves unable to defend their argument.

Some things really are incorrect, wrong, foolish, mistaken and/or stupid. This can happen to you, it can happen to all of us. Plenty of times I've found out my opinion was stupid, a big part of getting smarter is accepting that, accepting the challenge to our opinions and replacing them with something more considered. It can suck at times when we have to take a hit to our egos, but that's life.

What a joke. Many educated people hold similar (sometimes more aggressive views) than me, i enjoy reading, and many of the authors i enjoy are of the same mind as me, is Christopher Hitchens "wrong" and he doesnt have "sensible opinions" because he doesnt hold to the exact same world view as you do?

Christopher Hitchens has a pretty long record of having believed in some incredibly stupid things. He's an interesting guy to hear and read, but by no means should an idea be considered more legitimate because he's argues for it.

Now please stop making me reply to you, im good enough to merely ignore you, cant you give me the same courtesy?

It's an interesting argument to had, how much we should let people give foolish opinions, to stop from disturbing a social group or because the person posting them happens to be a friend. But that doesn't really apply here, this isn't a social group and you're not my friend.

That was civil and enjoyable to read so I shall cease my cranky attitude... well, until the next time.

I agreed with almost all of it as well, of course I wasn't attempting to say that hitchens is always "right" in my opinion, I mean, the bloke was a raving Marxist who fell out with his brother over some wacky red army statement! I disagree with him politically on many many points, but I was merely trying to say that he is clearly intelligent and therefore will have valid opinions I.e follow a logical path of thought.

And when your taking politics and ideology, there is rarely right and wrong, I mean, can you say someone is wrong for picking labour over conservative? (Yes!)

All I was trying to get across was that I think we should not show Islam the undeserved respect that we do, and your free to disagree, I'm not stupid enough to disagree entirely as I can see both sides of the argument, I just don't think its right to get more aggressive with the people that agree with wilders thinking.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

I was trying to avoid the word 'percentage' in that post because of the lack of hard data.


The loose demographics to look for are:

1. Estimated No of Christians/Moslems
2. Estimated No of Militant Churches/Mosques
3. Estimated Number of Militant Christians/Moslems


We only have very rough figures for only #1: 2 billion christians, 1.5 billion Moslems worldwide. Both are near top end estimates, low estimates take 30% off each, real top end adds another 10-15%. This is hard to quantify as there is a no social demarker between a nominally relgious person and a devout person. 'Number of church goers' only really works for churches as in some cultures attendance at a place of worship is mandatory even if one claims only nominal membership of the religion.

#2 and #3 only exist as statistics in various government security organisations that count them. All a layman can tell is: There are approx 4 Christians for every 3 Moslems worldwide, far more in the Western world, about 3 to 1 in the west.

How many militant churches are there in comparison to militant Mosques, To keep a parity of evil to evil there would need to be roughly 4:3 (preferably 3:1) assuming similar congregation size. Are there? Not a chance. There are considerably fewer militant churches around. Militant churches all but dont exist, even scum like Westboro Baptists do not endorse or call for terrorism, they just hate people. If only the same could be said of jihadist Mosques. There are public demographics out there for Islam vs radical Islam but you can find them as easy as I can and guestimates/figures vary. Real figures being properlty of the various nations security services and police.

If you really want to try and work out the balance somewhere pick a large western city, count the mosques and churches via google maps and do a google search on radical mosques cross referenced with the name of the city. You might get press reports of mosques the police feel the need to watch, you might not. Try again for churches.

#3 is even harder to calculate without bugging the radical churches or mosques and associated meeting halls. I get the feeling this is done, but we are not provy to the findings.
I cannot give numbers but it is very safe again to say from common observation that the percentage of radicalised Christians to Christians is considerably less than radicalised Moslems to Moslems, particularly in the west. Here the 'safe' use of the word percentage without actual statistics.


I took your question openly. It should be simple enough to come to the same conclusion I did just by watching a broadsection of the press for a year or two. Also there are a lot of radical Imams in the press who are quite open about endorsing jihad through terrorism. Some becoming regulars in the tabloids. I cannot provide figures. However while the PC idiot at this point will likely turn around and say "no statistical proof, so its all hearsay, Moslems are no more radical than Christians", I am not accusing you of being that blinkered.



Local vicar?



Just saw this in next post:

dogma wrote:
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.

For some issues the statistics are confidential or even classified information. You and I have to go wirth common observation. You reserve ther right to take what we say loosely, but anyone who is not deliberately blinkered can see there is a marked distinction between radicalised Islam to Islamic demographic compared to other religions. Unless the CIA at al springs a leak we wont get figures, and even those figures could be planted. Sometimes you just have to see there is a problem by opening ones eyes and seeing it.
I wonder what percentage of Al-Quaeda are Christians? Just because we don't have the answer, doesnt mean we cannot make an educated guess with enough safety to have some level of authority.

mattyrm wrote:That was civil and enjoyable to read so I shall cease my cranky attitude... well, until the next time.

Cool

All I was trying to get across was that I think we should not show Islam the undeserved respect that we do, and your free to disagree, I'm not stupid enough to disagree entirely as I can see both sides of the argument, I just don't think its right to get more aggressive with the people that agree with wilders thinking.

Thing is, I agree that there are issues within Islam. While the terrorists may be in the minority, there are other issues that a much more significant portion of the population are pretty up about; the burqua represents a wholly unhealthy fetishisation of women, a worrying number of arabs believed 9/11 was a jewish conspiracy and so on.

But when Wilders talks about the Koran as a fascist book, he's just wrong. People who agree with him on that are wrong.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:That was civil and enjoyable to read so I shall cease my cranky attitude... well, until the next time.

Cool

All I was trying to get across was that I think we should not show Islam the undeserved respect that we do, and your free to disagree, I'm not stupid enough to disagree entirely as I can see both sides of the argument, I just don't think its right to get more aggressive with the people that agree with wilders thinking.

Thing is, I agree that there are issues within Islam. While the terrorists may be in the minority, there are other issues that a much more significant portion of the population are pretty up about; the burqua represents a wholly unhealthy fetishisation of women, a worrying number of arabs believed 9/11 was a jewish conspiracy and so on.

But when Wilders talks about the Koran as a fascist book, he's just wrong. People who agree with him on that are wrong.

Then I'm glad to be wrong.

Oh, and he's part of our new goverment

Orlanth wrote:I took your question openly. It should be simple enough to come to the same conclusion I did just by watching a broadsection of the press for a year or two. Also there are a lot of radical Imams in the press who are quite open about endorsing jihad through terrorism. Some becoming regulars in the tabloids. I cannot provide figures. However while the PC idiot at this point will likely turn around and say "no statistical proof, so its all hearsay, Moslems are no more radical than Christians", I am not accusing you of being that blinkered.

From what I have seen it is usually the a small group of extremists that are focused on, and in doing so some news outlets give people the idea that this is a much larger problem than it actually is. If there is a protest involving thousands of people, any protest, news outlets will find the craziest of the bunch because it sells. It makes for lucrative journalism.

The fact that you cannot provide figures makes me doubt your argument at it's core. Your pretty much saying this stuff then pointing at news outlets that are habitually in favor of making money off of outrage. It is a business plan, and it isn't part of a plan to brainwash people. It's business in the world of news.

You've set up a strange argument where I am supposed to agree with you or I jump on your 'to whom it may concern' grenade. How about we just step ten feet this direction so neither of us is within blast range. Your saying it is because it is. That is not a substantive argument. I have no intention of dragging this into another argument.

We can disagree and I would still like real evidence to back up your statements. This isn't a preposterous request. It's really quite reasonable to ask for sources for such grand suggestions.

I understand you don't have that data, but since I am actually quite interested in this subject I will go ahead and see if I can find anything more over the next few days. If I find anything convincing over the next few days I'll go ahead and drop it in this thread. Most often there isn't convincing information either way. It doesn't matter that the news outlets you choose to watch point their cameras in a certain direction. Cameras work in 3-d. You can pan out and turn around in circles until you get dizzy. One consistent factor in all of this is that moderate protests usually don't exist. Angry people are usually the ones to protest - not the reasonable ones.

Wrexasaur wrote:
From what I have seen it is usually the a small group of extremists that are focused on, and in doing so some news outlets give people the idea that this is a much larger problem than it actually is. If there is a protest involving thousands of people, any protest, news outlets will find the craziest of the bunch because it sells. It makes for lucrative journalism.

That would hold water if we just had words, but we also have the result of actions, bombings, killings etc.

Wrexasaur wrote:
The fact that you cannot provide figures makes me doubt your argument at it's core. Your pretty much saying this stuff then pointing at news outlets that are habitually in favor of making money off of outrage. It is a business plan, and it isn't part of a plan to brainwash people. It's business in the world of news.

I dont know the exact mass of the Sun, but I know its there. You ask for too high a burden of proof. This sort of statistical information is not available, but the effects on society are. visible

Wrexasaur wrote:
We can disagree and I would still like real evidence to back up your statements. This isn't a preposterous request. It's really quite reasonable to ask for sources for such grand suggestions.

No real evidence to back up statements, isnt that an insult to the victims?
9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid. How much more evidence do you need?

Orlanth wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
From what I have seen it is usually the a small group of extremists that are focused on, and in doing so some news outlets give people the idea that this is a much larger problem than it actually is. If there is a protest involving thousands of people, any protest, news outlets will find the craziest of the bunch because it sells. It makes for lucrative journalism.

That would hold water if we just had words, but we also have the result of actions, bombings, killings etc.

It sounds like you are saying this is a much larger problem when it concerns one religion over another. I happen to disagree strongly.

Please clarify your point if I am misinterpreting your statements on this subject.

I have asked you to list these occurrences because it would help your argument to do so. There are plenty of references out there and you simply will not bring them into this conversation. You don't need data on this point. You need to show that there is a significantly larger number of terrorist acts from one extremist group over another. You outright said that it is pointless to do so, because you believe that this is an obvious problem. Sure, if it is so obvious and a handful of very large news outlets are not responsible for the branding of this concept it will not be difficult for you to show that.

If it is in fact as obvious as you suggest, you shouldn't have this hard of a time convincing me you are correct. I don't even consider this explicitly a matter of opinion, as suggestions that something is obvious bring up some serious questions in general.

I dont know the exact mass of the Sun, but I know its there. You ask for too high a burden of proof. This sort of statistical information is not available, but the effects on society are. visible

You are saying the sun is so large that we are at risk of being burnt up by it. It is necessary to your argument to illustrate why you think that is. If you continue to refuse such clarification I refuse to take your statements as they stand. References supporting your argument are necessary to prove your point. I can say a lot of things without substantiating them. So far your argument has been that the problem is incredibly obvious. It definitely isn't.

The question at hand is how much of a threat the sun really is. That is what we are talking about here. That general concept is what we are discussing. Threats and reactions.

Wrexasaur wrote:We can disagree and I would still like real evidence to back up your statements. This isn't a preposterous request. It's really quite reasonable to ask for sources for such grand suggestions.

No real evidence to back up statements, isnt that an insult to the victims?
9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid. How much more evidence do you need?

Do I really have to bring up acts of extremist terrorism to rebut this? I do not want to shift the conversation into whether or not Christians are 'more peaceful' than Muslims so I refuse to bring up the clear similarities in the issues you bring up.

Muslims died on 9/11. Muslims have been attacked by extremists. Is what you're saying not insulting to those individuals?

I need serious statistics to agree with you here. Data that supports your argument, because we are in fact talking about a very complicated issue with numerous aspects involved.

You're shifting the goal posts and working on the lines of emotions where objective views are very necessary to your arguments. Again, I'll take a bit of time to look around for some good statistics and analysis of this subject. From what I have gone through in the past it is a very gray area that has contrasting and valid views on nearly every point.

This is not a two-sided issue, and saying 9/11 a few more times ain't gunna change that.

egor71 wrote:Then I'm glad to be wrong.

Oh, and he's part of our new goverment

Are you glad to be wrong in your understanding of Islam, or in your understanding of Fascism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:No real evidence to back up statements, isnt that an insult to the victims?
9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid. How much more evidence do you need?

There are more than a billion muslims. If 10% wished violence on the rest of us, there’d be 100 million people plotting to plant bombs. If it was 1% there’d be 10 million. If it was 0.1% there’d be a million. Don’t you think a million people manage more than a few attacks over a decade?

sebster wrote:

egor71 wrote:Then I'm glad to be wrong.

Oh, and he's part of our new goverment

Are you glad to be wrong in your understanding of Islam, or in your understanding of Fascism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:No real evidence to back up statements, isnt that an insult to the victims?
9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid. How much more evidence do you need?

There are more than a billion muslims. If 10% wished violence on the rest of us, there’d be 100 million people plotting to plant bombs. If it was 1% there’d be 10 million. If it was 0.1% there’d be a million. Don’t you think a million people manage more than a few attacks over a decade?

I do understand the islam (since it's imagination it tried to invade europe for a thousand years and onley marginally succeeded at some points, and it will lose in open conflict again, mass imigration with the help of leftwing politics is the way to go), do you? It's in their history!

You calling me a fascist, racist, nut job or whatever want shut me up (a permanent ban will )

And 90% of a billion moeslims support the jihad, I don't see them doing anything to stop the violence.

egor71 wrote:I do understand the islam (since it's imagination it tried to invade europe for a thousand years and onley marginally succeeded at some points, and it will lose in open conflict again, mass imigration with the help of leftwing politics is the way to go), do you? It's in their history!

Which various Christian groups also attempted. And as it would be stupid to claim that there was some historic drive to take the Holy Lands among the general Christian populations, it's just as stupid to claim the same of any Islamic group.

You calling me a fascist, racist, nut job or whatever want shut me up (a permanent ban will )

Misreading things to contrive a personal attack is lame. Don't be lame.

I mentioned Wilders' claim that the Koran is a fascist book, and said this claim was plainly wrong. You declared that you are glad to be wrong, implying you believe the same as Wilders. I wasn't sure if you were wrong in your belief that the Koran is a fascist book because you don't understand Islam, or because you don't understand fascism.

Given you accept you are wrong, do you think this is because you don't understand fascism or because you don't understand Islam?

And 90% of a billion moeslims support the jihad, I don't see them doing anything to stop the violence.

That's nonsense. Do 90% of Catholics support paedophilia because they themselves have done nothing to stop it? Most people, regardless of nation, ethnicity or religion, won't do much of anything politically in their lives. Arguing that the individual must personally act to stop something is nonsense.

Pakistan has probably the strongest element of extremism of any country, maybe bested by Yemen. When elections have been held including religious parties they've won about 5% of the vote. And they aren't even extremist violent parties, just religiously oriented parties.

Claiming that any more than a tiny minority of Muslims want to overwhelm the Western world is just nonsense.

egor71 wrote:

sebster wrote:

egor71 wrote:Then I'm glad to be wrong.

Oh, and he's part of our new goverment

Are you glad to be wrong in your understanding of Islam, or in your understanding of Fascism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:No real evidence to back up statements, isnt that an insult to the victims?
9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid. How much more evidence do you need?

There are more than a billion muslims. If 10% wished violence on the rest of us, there’d be 100 million people plotting to plant bombs. If it was 1% there’d be 10 million. If it was 0.1% there’d be a million. Don’t you think a million people manage more than a few attacks over a decade?

I do understand the islam (since it's imagination it tried to invade europe for a thousand years and onley marginally succeeded at some points, and it will lose in open conflict again, mass imigration with the help of leftwing politics is the way to go), do you? It's in their history!

You calling me a fascist, racist, nut job or whatever want shut me up (a permanent ban will )

And 90% of a billion moeslims support the jihad, I don't see them doing anything to stop the violence.

And if you understood anything about history you would realize that the muslim conquerors were godsends. The byzantine empire was an oppressive state that stifled scientific thought, and was incredibly intolerant of other religion. Whereas until the seljuk turks the muslims were known for the open mindedness, and tolerence towards other religions, they were literally welcomed with open arms

This new brand of militant islam didn't exist until the mid 20th century

sebster wrote:Claiming that any more than a tiny minority of Muslims want to overwhelm the Western world is just nonsense.

The most important part of this is discussing what level of reaction is appropriate to that relatively insignificant portion.

There are serious threats involved, but overreacting could and already is costing us dearly. There are so many people involved in this issue it becomes overwhelming to consider all sides. Focusing on the largest and most powerful parts seems pretty damn sensible. In general those parts are represented by very significant countries that carry a lot of clout. Huge amounts of money have been spent fighting this issue, and in some ways it could be said that we have already lost the war.

We should be focusing on damage control not all out war.

egor71 wrote:

Facepalm indeed. Whatever mate, you made your opinion clear earlier.

Wrexasaur wrote:The most important part of this is discussing what level of reaction is appropriate to that relatively insignificant portion.

There are serious threats involved, but overreacting could and already is costing us dearly. There are so many people involved in this issue it becomes overwhelming to consider all sides. Focusing on the largest and most powerful parts seems pretty damn sensible. In general those parts are represented by very significant countries that carry a lot of clout. Huge amounts of money have been spent fighting this issue, and in some ways it could be said that we have already lost the war.

We should be focusing on damage control not all out war.

Yeah, that’s a fair point.

Also complicating the issue is that there are parts of Islam that are plainly ugly while not actually being a part of any terrorist scheme. Things such as sexism and the forming of ghettos are real issues in Western countries accepting Muslims that need solutions. Relations with Islam are more than just terrorism, but unfortunately the conversations just on terrorism tend to get drowned by people dreaming of some grand clash of civilisations, trying to have a broader conversation on the lines between cultural tolerance and the rights of individual citizens is near impossible.

Modquisition on. Private warnings have been issued for this thread. This is a reminder, RUle #1: Be Polite still applies to the OT is being enforced with more vigor. personal attacks or slants on other Dakka members will not be tolerated.

Well obviously we can all agree with what seb/wrex said, but if you take that fence sitting position there isnt anything to talk about is there?!

Of course not all muslims are bad, not even most, and of course, if you try to brutalise people they dig their heals in even more, human beings are stubborn, we cant start "carpet bombing" anyone because its a road to ruin and a guaranteed defeat in any conflict unless you are prepared to commit genocide, and nobody is. Well.. on our side anyway!

I dont think we should be hyper aggressive with Islam, hearts and minds is the only way to win our current conflicts, and we must work with the local populous if we hope to win, but all im saying is that i think we are taking too much of a softly softly approach to Muslims on our own soil..

I dont know exactly what im arguing for here, i just know i dont like the current situation!

egor71 wrote:And 90% of a billion moeslims support the jihad, I don't see them doing anything to stop the violence.

Ok, first. Support. Please show where it's been proven that 90% of all muslims support violent jihad and terrorism.
Second, how? How is an individual supposed to stop terrorism. Do you honestly expect every Muslim on the planet to pack up their bags, head to Afghanistan and Pakistan and start combing the mountains looking for Bin Laden and Al Queda? Seriously? If we're going to hold people to that standard then please explain to me what I could have done to stop Timothy McVeigh or the Backstreet Boys from unleashing their terror attacks.

mattyrm wrote:I dont know exactly what im arguing for here, i just know i dont like the current situation!

Tell me about it.

I'll be tolerant of muslims when they let me build a bacon factory in Mecca. That is if I could even enter the city without being shot.

The moral of the story is that muslims need to get a sense of ****ing humour.

mattyrm wrote:Well obviously we can all agree with what seb/wrex said, but if you take that fence sitting position there isnt anything to talk about is there?!

True

Of course not all muslims are bad, not even most, and of course, if you try to brutalise people they dig their heals in even more, human beings are stubborn, we cant start "carpet bombing" anyone because its a road to ruin and a guaranteed defeat in any conflict unless you are prepared to commit genocide, and nobody is. Well.. on our side anyway!

I dont think we should be hyper aggressive with Islam, hearts and minds is the only way to win our current conflicts, and we must work with the local populous if we hope to win, but all im saying is that i think we are taking too much of a softly softly approach to Muslims on our own soil..

I dont know exactly what im arguing for here, i just know i dont like the current situation!

Hmmm, thing is, I agree with you largely... and reading that wasn't fun. Let's get back to yelling at each other.

Trail update:

Yesterday the court decided that Wilders will not be prosecuted for insulting muslims as he insulted the islam as a religion and not muslims as a group.
The damage claims called for by muslim groups was refused as it could not be proven that they sufferd any damages.
Friday the court continious on the subject of hate speech and discrimination.

egor71 wrote:

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:That was civil and enjoyable to read so I shall cease my cranky attitude... well, until the next time.

Cool

All I was trying to get across was that I think we should not show Islam the undeserved respect that we do, and your free to disagree, I'm not stupid enough to disagree entirely as I can see both sides of the argument, I just don't think its right to get more aggressive with the people that agree with wilders thinking.

Thing is, I agree that there are issues within Islam. While the terrorists may be in the minority, there are other issues that a much more significant portion of the population are pretty up about; the burqua represents a wholly unhealthy fetishisation of women, a worrying number of arabs believed 9/11 was a jewish conspiracy and so on.

But when Wilders talks about the Koran as a fascist book, he's just wrong. People who agree with him on that are wrong.

Then I'm glad to be wrong.

Oh, and he's part of our new goverment

Oh yeah, we should be glad, really glad. "Henk and Ingrid" are going to pay for Floris-Herbert's Grachtengordel mansion (rents increase to support mortgage-support), nice heel-face turn for Wilders here.

Not a single important issue will be adressed by this new coalition. They're only going to bully house-renters, artists, the younger generations and school teachers.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
From what I have seen it is usually the a small group of extremists that are focused on, and in doing so some news outlets give people the idea that this is a much larger problem than it actually is. If there is a protest involving thousands of people, any protest, news outlets will find the craziest of the bunch because it sells. It makes for lucrative journalism.

That would hold water if we just had words, but we also have the result of actions, bombings, killings etc.

It sounds like you are saying this is a much larger problem when it concerns one religion over another. I happen to disagree strongly.

Please clarify your point if I am misinterpreting your statements on this subject.

Easy: Political correct dogma leading to a bend over backwards mentaility towards militant Islam. militant Islamics, and many manistream Islamics are taking advantage of this to our detriment.
There is more to it than that, but the evidence was clearly stated in above posts by myself and others. I wonder if you dont understand or simply wont understand.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I have asked you to list these occurrences because it would help your argument to do so.

Done several long posts on that, what more need I say. If you dont see the answers re-read properly.

Wrexasaur wrote:
There are plenty of references out there and you simply will not bring them into this conversation. You don't need data on this point. You need to show that there is a significantly larger number of terrorist acts from one extremist group over another.

Done that. Try reading the thread, what I didnt cover others did.

Wrexasaur wrote:
You outright said that it is pointless to do so, because you believe that this is an obvious problem.

Not done, said or implied that. The problem is obvious, but that doesnt make any comprisons invalid. I did quite a long comparison between Islamic militancy and abortion clinic murders.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Sure, if it is so obvious and a handful of very large news outlets are not responsible for the branding of this concept it will not be difficult for you to show that. If it is in fact as obvious as you suggest, you shouldn't have this hard of a time convincing me you are correct. I don't even consider this explicitly a matter of opinion, as suggestions that something is obvious bring up some serious questions in general.

Why dont you look instead. I have shown you the evidence, you can rad from a pres source that suits you. I will not be drawn into the trap of picking one paper or another, because they all have a slantr. But if you look at the egidence say Madrid bombings or Glasgow airport bombings to note two of many examples you can see what the press say on your own, and see just howe much covedrage there is. More than I can just cram down on a barrage of links.
Besides links dont help, those who are in denial for one reason or other, beicause they are PC dogmatised, bercause they hope the truth will go away or are genuinely deceived; they I cannot help.

Wrexasaur wrote:

I dont know the exact mass of the Sun, but I know its there. You ask for too high a burden of proof. This sort of statistical information is not available, but the effects on society are. visible

You are saying the sun is so large that we are at risk of being burnt up by it.

I requoted just to show how far from the mark you are going. Please re-read the thread.

Wrexasaur wrote:
So far your argument has been that the problem is incredibly obvious. It definitely isn't......
We can disagree and I would still like real evidence to back up your statements. This isn't a preposterous request. It's really quite reasonable to ask for sources for such grand suggestions.....
Do I really have to bring up acts of extremist terrorism to rebut this? I do not want to shift the conversation into whether or not Christians are 'more peaceful' than Muslims so I refuse to bring up the clear similarities in the issues you bring up.

The point still stands the attacks occured, by Moslems for reasons connected to their Islamic beliefs.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Muslims died on 9/11. Muslims have been attacked by extremists. Is what you're saying not insulting to those individuals?

That says nothing more than that militant Islam is a threat to Moselms too. RThis is evident by the nature of the bombings in Iraq that take far more local civilian lives than invaders. To ther gak militia this is acceptable.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I need serious statistics to agree with you here. Data that supports your argument, because we are in fact talking about a very complicated issue with numerous aspects involved.

What use would statistics do, statistics can be doctored. how about calls ofr Jihad, calls for Sharia, calls supporting the terrorism. I also mentioned rthat due to the nature of the subject clear data is hard to find, often classified. We dont know how many Islamic fundamentalists there are. Try asking the CIA, good luck getting a reliable answer. If you dont get one its doesnt mean the data is flawed or there is no case to answer for. Stop treating geopolitics like its hard science with long lists of methematical proofs or equations, it isnt.

Wrexasaur wrote:
You're shifting the goal posts and working on the lines of emotions where objective views are very necessary to your arguments. Again, I'll take a bit of time to look around for some good statistics and analysis of this subject. From what I have gone through in the past it is a very gray area that has contrasting and valid views on nearly every point.

This is not a two-sided issue, and saying 9/11 a few more times ain't gunna change that.

No, but if we keep on saying '9/11' enough you might realise that the focus is the same and the 'goal posts' haven't shifted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:The most important part of this is discussing what level of reaction is appropriate to that relatively insignificant portion.

There are serious threats involved, but overreacting could and already is costing us dearly. There are so many people involved in this issue it becomes overwhelming to consider all sides. Focusing on the largest and most powerful parts seems pretty damn sensible. In general those parts are represented by very significant countries that carry a lot of clout. Huge amounts of money have been spent fighting this issue, and in some ways it could be said that we have already lost the war.

We should be focusing on damage control not all out war.

Yeah, that’s a fair point.

Also complicating the issue is that there are parts of Islam that are plainly ugly while not actually being a part of any terrorist scheme. Things such as sexism and the forming of ghettos are real issues in Western countries accepting Muslims that need solutions. Relations with Islam are more than just terrorism, but unfortunately the conversations just on terrorism tend to get drowned by people dreaming of some grand clash of civilisations, trying to have a broader conversation on the lines between cultural tolerance and the rights of individual citizens is near impossible.

Sebster, the point would be fair if it were not commonplace. How many people from faction x supported atrocity y? Take that question and apply it just about anywhere, you will see that all the big bad evils in the world had a handful of leaders and a lot of people who pro-actively failed to say no. Tyrants rely on only a hardful of true supporters, a larger number of semi-loyal supporters balanced by their own rivalries and the lack of high level opponents willing to stand up and say no. The same is true of dema-gogues. the Spanish crown didnt want the Inquisition but were too scared to oppose them, how much more so the people. We are seeing stirrings in Iran against fundameltailism, but conversely many millions will follow the mullahs out of crowd instinct.

To make matters worse even without an Islamic powerbase there has been a very strong and openly seen reluctance for the peaceful Islamic majority to even critique let alone curb the militants. Uk Moslems should certainly be able to speak their own minds, yet few use that freedom to condemn suicide bombings, they may well be a minority to the apologists, maybe not. We cannot tell, and I know better than to ask MI5 for statistics, and better yet than to find publically released data on the demographics of fundamentalism in the New Labour era. New Labour release data on naughty things some ethnic minorities do, give your head a break, that is likely covered under the 30 year rule as with too many things that could have embarassed Blair.

Trail up date:

DA won't prosecute Wilders ( on the points of insulting, hate speech and discrimination) because he was in his right to say what he said.
In November the judge wil present his verdict.

Orlanth wrote:I wonder if you dont understand or simply wont understand.

I understand that you have a very strong opinion on this subject. You are telling me to re-read the thread because you supposedly proved your point so clearly that I am supposed to regard your statements as fact. I disagree with you, and you take offense to that so much that you feel forced to insult me in one way or another.

Stop telling me to re-read the thread. I am not necessarily trying to stop you from having your opinion, but it should be pretty clear to someone such as yourself that while you may feel strongly about this issue, others do as well. I'll get back to you when I can reference serious studies on this subject.

I do not agree with you. You seem to ignore that, and go on to insult my character.

Have a nice day, Orlanth.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I understand that you have a very strong opinion on this subject. You are telling me to re-read the thread because you supposedly proved your point so clearly that I am supposed to regard your statements as fact. I disagree with you, and you take offense to that so much that you feel forced to insult me in one way or another.

Disagree would be one thing, but you claimed I had supporteed my case with no evidence, which could only mean you hadnt read the thread. Disagree with the evidence is one thing, saying I posted none is somehing else.

Wrexasaur wrote:
I do not agree with you. You seem to ignore that, and go on to insult my character.
Have a nice day, Orlanth.

I didnt insult you I insulted politically corect dogmatists who get very upset if we dont appease the Islamic minority and will tolerate their antics in the name of diversity when diversity is precisely what they dont want. I will happily oppose the poltically correct because their appeasement is more dangerous than the Islamic fundameltalist threat. Islamic fundameltalists while obnoxious and dangerous in equal measure are a small minority, PC appeasers are or at least very recently were part of a political majority who enforced their grossly hypocritical will on others.
Other than the terrorists themselves all my critique on this thread has been directed at the politically correct appeasers, not at any individuals here. Reading the thread clearly will show you this. Whether you think you fit into that category or not is your own concern.

Have a nice day too.

Orlanth wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
I understand that you have a very strong opinion on this subject. You are telling me to re-read the thread because you supposedly proved your point so clearly that I am supposed to regard your statements as fact. I disagree with you, and you take offense to that so much that you feel forced to insult me in one way or another.

Disagree would be one thing, but you claimed I had supporteed my case with no evidence, which could only mean you hadnt read the thread. Disagree with the evidence is one thing, saying I posted none is somehing else.

How many minarets are there in Switzerland?

According to this article there are only four in the entire country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world/europe/30swiss.html

Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
I understand that you have a very strong opinion on this subject. You are telling me to re-read the thread because you supposedly proved your point so clearly that I am supposed to regard your statements as fact. I disagree with you, and you take offense to that so much that you feel forced to insult me in one way or another.

Disagree would be one thing, but you claimed I had supporteed my case with no evidence, which could only mean you hadnt read the thread. Disagree with the evidence is one thing, saying I posted none is somehing else.

How many minarets are there in Switzerland?

How many in Japan?
I know many areas that have historical or building restrictions. They don't care about religion, just keeping the area homogeneous in aesthetic. You couldn't have minarets or a steeple there either, but you could still have a church or mosque.

How many church spires and towers are there?

How many tall office buildings?

How many buildings of more than five stories?

These are examples of facts and evidence.