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.

Does anybody else think some of the Nasheeds they use are kind of catchy?

Probably avoid listening to at work.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Your example of the Imam saying things like that is ridiculous. I can give you many examples of cases that were very big in the media of judges saying things like 'sometimes sex hurts a little' to rape victims or this gem from Italy: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39392147
Italy's justice minister has said he will investigate after a court acquitted a man of sexually assaulting a woman because she did not scream.

This italian gem has caused a huge amount of backlash against that judge, which is typically a category that is quite hated in italy. An imam instead is a person that speaks to people and has great influence above them, what an imam thinks and says has certainly more weight. I don't see a christian priest that speaks that way. If it happens it would be removed immediately. We're not going to defend and accept behaviour like this if they belong to common citizens but we're going to put our head under the sand if they come from a minority, because we fear to be branded as racists.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're now arguing that a judge is not a person with a "great influence" over people.

Oh oh, here we already have AlmightyWalrus saying how ridiculous it is to claim a judge is not a person with 'great influence'. Judges are the people that have to uphold the constitutions and laws that are the foundation of our whole modern Western culture. All the progress we have achieved is based on these laws, to say someone who chooses how to employ these laws against those who break them/or complex legal societal issues doesn't have great influence is ridiculous (insert Supreme Court reference here). I mean its great this one case has generated so much backlash in Italy, but for how many we hear about do dozens go unnoticed because the victim just doesn't want to be put through hearing such things from a judge again? Also you're arguing judges are a hated category in Italy, if they aren't influential, why do so many people hate them?

I see your Imam and raise you my Bishop! http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/spain-probe-alleged-hate-speech-valencia-archbishop-n595616

MADRID — Prosecutors said Friday they are investigating a Spanish archbishop for possible criminal hate speech because of remarks he made recently about the gay community.

The Valencia's provincial prosecutor's office said it was studying a recent speech made by Valencia Archbishop Antonio Canizares in which he said "powers such as the gay empire" promoted the rise of movements against the Christian family.

Canizares also hit out at feminists and gender ideology.

I mean 'Christian family', 'gay empire' and against feminists and 'gender ideology'? If this isn't massive code for only straight men need to apply (and white going off of previous remarks by this guy) I don't know what is. I wonder if he and that Italian Imam can get together to discuss women's rights, should be a blast.

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Your are the one generalizing and sharing right win propaganda demonizing Muslims. Once we can have a decent conversation about terrorism that doesn't involve 'but Muslims...'

Not muslims, radical muslims. I actually grew up with some people that happened to be muslims, none of them was radicalized, they all lived like anyone else, just with a different religion. Many northern europeans always talk about including the refugees in their societies, or how the muslim communities are misrepresented but they never had friends among that minorities, and they wouldn't hang out with those people. Many of these defenders of the minorities are actually among the most racists people I met, they do so only because they fear to be called for what they really are, racist people. I'm not referring to you, as I don't know anything about you, but I've met several of them, and it's the reason why in countries like yours, germany, sweden many crimes committed by these minorities are poorly covered and at the same time far right polititians have significant consense. Maybe they won't win the elections (yet) but here in Italy I've never seen polititians like le pen, akesson, wilders or even orban with more than 5-6 %.

Ok this is just getting stupid. A. admit you didn't take any effort in posting non-generalizing or obvious racist information (again you linked me 'Eurabia') or B. your English is not sufficient to fully explain yourself without accusing me of the things you're doing. You have certainly accused or implied I was justifying terrorism and/or generalizing against Muslims and I have the quotes to back up that statement. You have given me nothing to back up your claims. Personally knowing people and claiming Northern Europeans anti-racists are actually racists is the weirdest high horse 'I have a black friend' rhetoric I have heard in a while on DakkaDakka. To say these crimes are poorly covered in the media is just plain out false, let me again repeat the German Federal Police report that media report that 25% of migrant/refugee crime is sexual assault while the actual number is 1%. If anything we have racist and right wing media over-reporting. Furthermore these politicians are driven by a mixture of platforms of nationalism, left wing economics and playing into the lowest common denominator/protest vote in each of these countries. Each country has its own issue and the effort we expended into keeping the EU and the Euro afloat against what occurred in Southern Europe certainly helped politicians like Le Pen or Wilders. Hating foreigners was just incidental until the refugee crisis put it largely on the map again. The main hate before was directed at citizens being different. The problem is that too many people use these parties as a protest vote, but then deny being part of the racist element they are also having to vote for. I think this is one of the few things we will ever get consensus on, people like Le Pen or Wilders are just awful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
I don't see a christian priest that speaks that way. If it happens it would be removed immediately.

Sure. Defending pedophiles will be okay, though .

 Blackie wrote:
Not muslims, radical muslims.

Ahah no. Such dishonesty…

 Blackie wrote:
but in the same time there aren't people that have studied in those countries that actually have qualified jobs in europe, those savages can't do other things in a research lab.

Hes never going to own up to the things he has said and posted before. Points for him trying to flip it on me though

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is that too many people use these parties as a protest vote, but then deny being part of the racist element they are also having to vote for. I think this is one of the few things we will ever get consensus on, people like Le Pen or Wilders are just awful.

This bears emphasizing. I'll use the Sweden Democrats as my example because it's the populist party I know the best. I don't think everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is a racist. I do, however, think that everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is one (or more of the following):

A: Ignorant of the fact that racism is the foundation of the party's entire view of human nature (and this is "culture is genetically inherited" racism, not "cultural racism", before anyone starts whining about me using a 40-year old term relevant to the field).

B: Ignorant of racism in general, as evidenced by the fact that people persistently keep claiming that the party isn't racist despite having a paragraph in their party manifesto (pg. 8 if anyone's interested) about how culture is genetically inherited and that people of different cultures thus can't ever live side by side because of genetic reasons.

C: Apathetic to the racism in the party. This is, I feel, the crucial point: a lot of people don't actively hate immigrants of foreigners, they just don't give a gak whether they die or not. When the racism of the party is pointed out, this segment of the voter base often overlaps with B, because they genuinely don't think they're racist, and thus feel obliged to defend the party.

D: A racist. They're there, I don't know how many, but dear God some people...

In either case, A, B, and C are all willing to overlook D being present and then become rather defensive when you point out that D is the reason their party exists in the first place.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The problem is that too many people use these parties as a protest vote, but then deny being part of the racist element they are also having to vote for. I think this is one of the few things we will ever get consensus on, people like Le Pen or Wilders are just awful.

This bears emphasizing. I'll use the Sweden Democrats as my example because it's the populist party I know the best. I don't think everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is a racist. I do, however, think that everyone who votes for the Sweden Democrats is one (or more of the following):

A: Ignorant of the fact that racism is the foundation of the party's entire view of human nature (and this is "culture is genetically inherited" racism, not "cultural racism", before anyone starts whining about me using a 40-year old term relevant to the field).

B: Ignorant of racism in general, as evidenced by the fact that people persistently keep claiming that the party isn't racist despite having a paragraph in their party manifesto (pg. 8 if anyone's interested) about how culture is genetically inherited and that people of different cultures thus can't ever live side by side because of genetic reasons.

C: Apathetic to the racism in the party. This is, I feel, the crucial point: a lot of people don't actively hate immigrants of foreigners, they just don't give a gak whether they die or not. When the racism of the party is pointed out, this segment of the voter base often overlaps with B, because they genuinely don't think they're racist, and thus feel obliged to defend the party.

D: A racist. They're there, I don't know how many, but dear God some people...

In either case, A, B, and C are all willing to overlook D being present and then become rather defensive when you point out that D is the reason their party exists in the first place.

I think you can put this into a wider European framework. This is all very applicable to European right wing parties. People say they vote for them because of their economic policies (which is basically saying "free money for everyone, we have no idea how we will ever pay for this!") and protecting the nations 'values and traditions'. Then people claim they aren't racist but these parties are so nonviable government wise and then comes the media attention to the things that daddy Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Höcke have screamed out at times that sure make the 'values and traditions' racist dog whistle seem more like a bullhorn and hard to deny. People suffer from serious 'head in the sand' syndrome when it comes to these parties believing that the right wing fairy tales could actually become true or that for some magical reason supporting the racist right wing will force other parties to move in that direction for their vote (it sort of worked in the U.S.). I think at least for the Netherlands that we have a serious problem in that we are not allowed to discuss these things properly without ourselves being called deplorable for calling out the 'deplorable' by those we criticize. For parties demonizing whole parts of society they certainly are thin-skinned when you question them and their victim complex, managed to squeeze in one more U.S. reference

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Also you're arguing judges are a hated category in Italy, if they aren't influential, why do so many people hate them?

I'd like to explain this: in my country prisons are extremely overcrowded and italy gets sanctions from the EU because the situation is not acceptable with the european standards. Our polititians don't want to invest money to solve this problem as we need a huge amount of money for many other basic things (not to mention that a significant number of our polititians are corrupted), that's why they impose judges to treat criminals in the most soft way they can. Which means charges dismissed in many cases (and rape trials are a perfect example of that), trials that are delayed, suspended/alternative sentences when it comes to actual convictions, and then significant reductions of sentences at appeals (the majority of the appelas comes with a reduction of the sentence discussed, regardless of the gravity of the crime committed). That's why there is the feeling that judges are usually too indulgent with criminals and they are not particularly beloved.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Hes never going to own up to the things he has said and posted before. Points for him trying to flip it on me though

Thanks for quoting me, I think he has me on ignore. Shows how confident he is in his ability to answer me .

 Blackie wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


Also you're arguing judges are a hated category in Italy, if they aren't influential, why do so many people hate them?

I'd like to explain this: in my country prisons are extremely overcrowded and italy gets sanctions from the EU because the situation is not acceptable with the european standards. Our polititians don't want to invest money to solve this problem as we need a huge amount of money for many other basic things (not to mention that a significant number of our polititians are corrupted), that's why they impose judges to treat criminals in the most soft way they can. Which means charges dismissed in many cases (and rape trials are a perfect example of that), trials that are delayed, suspended/alternative sentences when it comes to actual convictions, and then significant reductions of sentences at appeals (the majority of the appelas comes with a reduction of the sentence discussed, regardless of the gravity of the crime committed). That's why there is the feeling that judges are usually too indulgent with criminals and they are not particularly beloved.

You should give some of those criminals to the Netherlands, we have room to spare in our prisons and are renting them out to other nations. Why would judges not send violent offenders to prison or reduce sentences for criminals that commit theft for example, that seems to be a case of priorities being badly managed. If I look at statistics a good half of the prison population has committed non-violent crimes such as theft, robbery or drug possession. More to the point, this shows exactly how influential judges are, being able to decide who goes to prison and for how long. Even if there is less space in prison, the judiciary system is supposed to be independent of the legislative branch of government. Or are you saying that politicians can pressure judges into giving rapists reduced sentences due to prison overcrowding? In that case I think you have more to worry about than one Imam's hate speech. People don't hate their garbage man because he has no effect on their life, people do however hate public figures who can actually shape or influence parts of society in a multitude of ways, Imams and judges both can be placed in this category. But as those judges are actually in charge to judge on our laws and use them to decide who is guilty or innocent I think we should require higher standards of them than some fringe religious preacher, unless you can show me he went through the Italian state system to get certified just like this judge.

Manchu wrote:
Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

Don't look at me. I've been very careful not to say what I thought about some posts, though I've noticed a lack of the hammer coming down on some posts that make pretty much anything I have ever said on this forum look pretty mild.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Also can someone explain why the mods have no problem with this comment?

Been trying hard to avoid a ban by not responding to this. Manchu would freak if I post what I think about it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Been trying hard to avoid a ban by not responding to this. Manchu would freak if I post what I think about it.

I've been banned because:
“I gave you a warning for incendiary language, which 'hate-spewing' most certainly is, be it your opinion or not. There are better, less inflammatory terms for it. Please be aware of your posting habits in the future.”
It was about Saudi Arabia, to give you an idea of context. The country which airs preachers that says apostates should be killed, and homosexuals too. But what Blackie said is perfectly 100% okay totally not inflammatory. I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
(Link)

Here's an article about an interesting book about those ones who returned from syria/iraq. As I always thought they don't regret what they were doing or the concept of the caliphate, they only regret the comforts they had in a western country.

The title reminds of an amazing french tv series, but of course it has nothing to do with that.

https://www.ft.com/content/ce70df74-cdde-11e6-864f-20dcb35cede2

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/02/how-frances-war-on-islam-became-a-bestseller-david-thomson/

A few days ago 4 men from kosovo, all with regular and legal jobs (they worked as waiters) were arrested on the suspicion of plotting a terror attack in venice. One of them is a foreign fighter that has fought in syria.

Kosovo is a nation under western influence, they're Usa oriented. But saudi arabia has paid several hundreds of millions to make this nation another radial islamic area.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saudis-turned-kosovo-into-fertile-ground-for-isis.html?_r=0

The hypocrisy of western countries, that that keep saudi arabia as an allied and a business partner is disgusting. Saudi arabia is among the fathers of islamic terrorism groups, and not even donald trump condemnes their actions.

 Blackie wrote:
and not even donald trump condemnes their actions.

Why not even Donald Trump? He would be among the least likely to, because $$$.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39470521

You've got to wonder why they are so scared of anything other than Islam, that they have to totally destroy all historical artefacts. Most people in the western world see statues of ancient gods as a novelty, but to ISIS they need total destruction.

They're obliterating the history of their own people. The first potters wheels for example in this video. Something their ancestors achieved, but now needs irradiating because they weren't Muslims.

This thing actually angers me more than killing people. You can kill people, which is awful, but they are destroying the history and culture of the people, in the hope they can rewrite history in their own approved Islamic way. They say you can kill a man but you can't kill ideas, but ISIS will give it a bloody good try. Now generations will grow up with these artefacts and historic sites being just a memory of their parents.

I don't know why but that looks like a plaster replica.

The originals are probably going into the black market so they can keep buying Bulgarian guns.

BTW, has anyone seen the data for the Deir ez-zor air supply?
2016 had 2500 tons delivered. Now the total is 3500 tons.

That's a pretty big step-up. Hope the people trapped here can hold until the siege is broken.

 aldo wrote:
I don't know why but that looks like a plaster replica.

The originals are probably going into the black market so they can keep buying Bulgarian guns.

BTW, has anyone seen the data for the Deir ez-zor air supply?
2016 had 2500 tons delivered. Now the total is 3500 tons.

That's a pretty big step-up. Hope the people trapped here can hold until the siege is broken.

one of the few places that bogged IS up for years it seems.
also http://aranews.net/2017/03/kurdish-led-sdf-forces-cut-off-isis-supply-line-raqqa-deir-ez-zor/

seems Kurdish forces may have cut IS link road off between them.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39470521

You've got to wonder why they are so scared of anything other than Islam, that they have to totally destroy all historical artefacts. Most people in the western world see statues of ancient gods as a novelty, but to ISIS they need total destruction.

They're obliterating the history of their own people. The first potters wheels for example in this video. Something their ancestors achieved, but now needs irradiating because they weren't Muslims.

This thing actually angers me more than killing people. You can kill people, which is awful, but they are destroying the history and culture of the people, in the hope they can rewrite history in their own approved Islamic way. They say you can kill a man but you can't kill ideas, but ISIS will give it a bloody good try. Now generations will grow up with these artefacts and historic sites being just a memory of their parents.

Islam is basically Protestantism on steroids.

jhe90 wrote:
seems Kurdish forces may have cut IS link road off between them.

Don't worry, Turkey will start up artillery and air strikes just to keep ISIS in the game.

Medium of Death wrote:
Islam is basically Protestantism on steroids.

I'd have said Puritanism, it's nicely dead, so that the mods are less likely to deem it unseemly to make such a comparison. After all, I got banned because I compared a certain political party to another highly dubious political party that they had embraced inorder to win the election. It's much like HL Mencken once said: "If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

Though I've always preferred, in the case of the current administration: "POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
(Link)

If I was the type to have signature quotes, this would be one of them.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
(Link)

If I was the type to have signature quotes, this would be one of them.

Good idea. I should do that if some mods had not rolled 73 on the “random mid-crisis encounter event” which is “No signature allowed” .

Syria war: US launches missile strikes in response to chemical 'attack'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39523654
The US has carried out a missile strike against a Syrian air base in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town.

Fifty-nine Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from two US Navy ships in the Mediterranean. Six people were killed, the Syrian army said.

It is the first direct US military action against forces commanded by Syria's president.

The Kremlin, which backs Bashar al-Assad, has condemned the strike.

Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, called it "an act of aggression against a sovereign nation".

Follow our live updates
Dramatic turnaround for Trump
Trump acts decisively in Syria: Now what?
Why is there a war in Syria?

The attack, at 04:40 Syrian time (01:40 GMT), comes just days after dozens of civilians, including many children, died in the suspected nerve gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province.

This is fething idiotic. Mission Creep is going to set in, and we'll soon be bogged down again for the next decade occupying Syria, like we occupied Iraq. All we need now is another Dodgy Dossier.

Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.

I seriously doubt that. The US and nato forces will never attack someone that can strike back. We may only invade some third world country like syria, or afghanistand and iraq before it, no way we would start a war against russia.

 Blackie wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Probably won't be long until we start shooting down the Russians too.

I seriously doubt that. The US and nato forces will never attack someone that can strike back. We may only invade some third world country like syria, or afghanistand and iraq before it, no way we would start a war against russia.

I agree, but theres still a very real danger of mistaken identity, accidentally shooting down a Russian jet if we mistake it for a Syrian one.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

I agree, but theres still a very real danger of mistaken identity, accidentally shooting down a Russian jet if we mistake it for a Syrian one.

Plus Russia just announced they're backing out on the deal between the US and Russia to share operational information in hopes of causing exactly that.


I suppose the ultimate question there is 'How far is Putin willing to go to keep Tartus'? Since Russia's only real interest in Syria at this point, other than oil, is the Russian Navy's base at Tartus. It's supposedly a supply and maintenance facility, According to the Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs the base has evacuated all civilians, but the Russian Defense Ministry denies this.

Russia just in January got Syria to extend the deal for the port for another 50 years, including surrendering sovereignty over the territory of the port, making it Russian national soil, as Putin sees it.

If Putin can handle the shoot down of one of his fighters by Turkey, he'll get over this strike, where none of his stuff was targeted, pretty easily.

Hell, it may even prompt him to get a tighter leash on Assad.

I suspect the backing out of info sharing will be pretty short lived.

If we're going to go through with this and depose Assad, we'd bloody well have a solid plan for what comes next, who replaces him and how to rebuild Syria's government.

My fear is that history will look back on any Western attempt to depose Assad as a repeat of the Iraq debacle. I have no faith in our governments' collective ability to avoid repeating the mistakes of Iraq.

Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

 CptJake wrote:
Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?

 Medium of Death wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

Better start attacking the guy who is the most likely to restore stability to his country. Are Yanks deliberately attempting to help ISIS? Is this why Trump wanted his travel ban, so Islamic extremists could spread everywhere but the US?

Why quote me when your response has feth all to do with my comment? If you want to rail against a Trump policy that does not yet exist, go for it, but no reason to quote me in your effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the travel ban, it is almost as if you were under the mistaken impression that a US travel ban had some effect on the ability of other countries to control their own immigration.

Well a good way to depose somebody is by aiding their enemies. You Yanks also have a history of stirring up terrorism and then crying when it happens to you. Britain is actually doing a great job in preventing terrorism across Europe.

You realise there's more than just Assad and IS in syria right?

And the blaming all of a regions problems on the US, especially when multiple fingers have been in the pie for several centuries, is especially inane.

 CptJake wrote:
Did Trump mention he intends to dispose Assad? If so, not only did I miss that but this strike was a poor first step.

I didn't see it directly from Trump's mouth, but his Sec. of State did...