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.

What's jingoistic about it? Not all or even most want to blow us up, but they think we should all be Muslims, and we aren't equal to them.

This is true, there is no nonsense here.

Frazzled wrote:You missed the interesting This Week townhall with several prominent Brit types talking about global sharia being a requirement of their faith.

If its informed it really needs to be open and not bound by PC nonesense either. Clearly if Wilders being prosecuted such a debate cannot occur in that country.

And that's really the key problem we have, at least here in the UK, that it is very difficult to engage in any kind of debate about these issues without the race card and ignorance from both sides of the coin.

For example, immigration was seen as one of the key issues of the recent election by all the major pollsters yet the issue seems to have been forgotten about, aside from the proposal to cap non-EU immigration. It is too often seen as a hot potato and shoved under the carpet but all that does is foster tension and breed more ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:What's jingoistic about it? Not all or even most want to blow us up, but they think we should all be Muslims, and we aren't equal to them.

This is true, there is no nonsense here.

And Christians (at least the semi-devout ones) don't? A key tenet of Christianity is to spread the faith - have you never been door stepped by them before? How different is that? The means of expression may be different but the goal is the same.

Yeah mate, and I strongly dislike devout Christians because of that attitude.

The fact is, the only Muslims I have time for ain't Muslims, they are the fake wishy washy ones they send in to convince us that all is well, and it isn't.

I dislike all devout religious people for the simple fact that they want to be able to decide how everyone else should live their lives.

It's not on. And yes some Christians do it as well, bit that ain't the topic here, the topic is Islam, and Islam IS an aggressive dogma that is doing all it can to spread, and anyone who actually cares about freedom should be very worried about it.

Especially women.

egor71 wrote:And you think he should debate in court with a judge

Read it a little more carefully. The judge wasn't inviting a statement for the judge to debate, he was looking for him to make a statement on his own behalf, which the prosecution might counter. That's how courts work. When a defendant declines to offer substantiation for his claims, it's odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:i dont think we should villify all the Muslims in Europe, but Islam is a very savage and aggressive Religion

Uh huh.

Which was an absolute tragedy by the way. But still the goddamn hippies have everyone in Europe convinced that Islam is all about "peace" despite the fact that they keep on blowing people up and knifing people they disagree with.

There's a billion muslims. If any more than the tiniest minority wanted to commit violence, we'd have a whole lot more troubles than the odd bomb going off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:What's jingoistic about it? Not all or even most want to blow us up, but they think we should all be Muslims, and we aren't equal to them.

No, not really. There's pretty standard xenophobia you see in all groups like Christians and even your beloved atheists, assuming their way is the best way and everything would be better if everyone was like them.

But that's a million miles from actually wanting to do anything about it, and million miles again from acting.

There are problems with extreme fringes of Islam, no doubt. The solution to this is isolate that fringe from the majority of the faith, carrying on like its representative of the majority of Muslims will only make the problem worse.

But I've explained all of that to you before, and I expect I will again. As long as you don't want to get it, you won't get it.

sebster wrote:

egor71 wrote:And you think he should debate in court with a judge

Read it a little more carefully. The judge wasn't inviting a statement for the judge to debate, he was looking for him to make a statement on his own behalf, which the prosecution might counter. That's how courts work. When a defendant declines to offer substantiation for his claims, it's odd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:i dont think we should villify all the Muslims in Europe, but Islam is a very savage and aggressive Religion

Uh huh.

Which was an absolute tragedy by the way. But still the goddamn hippies have everyone in Europe convinced that Islam is all about "peace" despite the fact that they keep on blowing people up and knifing people they disagree with.

There's a billion muslims. If any more than the tiniest minority wanted to commit violence, we'd have a whole lot more troubles than the odd bomb going off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:What's jingoistic about it? Not all or even most want to blow us up, but they think we should all be Muslims, and we aren't equal to them.

No, not really. There's pretty standard xenophobia you see in all groups like Christians and even your beloved atheists, assuming their way is the best way and everything would be better if everyone was like them.

But that's a million miles from actually wanting to do anything about it, and million miles again from acting.

There are problems with extreme fringes of Islam, no doubt. The solution to this is isolate that fringe from the majority of the faith, carrying on like its representative of the majority of Muslims will only make the problem worse.

But I've explained all of that to you before, and I expect I will again. As long as you don't want to get it, you won't get it.

Sorry what was that? I thought i had already explained to you via PM that i dont actually read anything exceptionally boring, self important people had to say?

(edited to be clearer )
Read it a little more carefully. The judge wasn't inviting a statement for the judge to debate, he was looking for him to make a statement on his own behalf, which the prosecution might counter. That's how courts work. When a defendant declines to offer substantiation for his claims, it's odd.
***You not seen many criminal cases then. Its "odd" for a defendant to say anything in a criminal case if he doesn't have to.

There are problems with extreme fringes of Islam, no doubt. The solution to this is isolate that fringe from the majority of the faith, carrying on like its representative of the majority of Muslims will only make the problem worse.
***Only the moderates of that faith can do that, just like any other faith. WE can't do that. If they don't, then you're left with the terrorists and guerrilla wars and you have to act on that basis.

Frazzled wrote:(edited to be clearer )


There are problems with extreme fringes of Islam, no doubt. The solution to this is isolate that fringe from the majority of the faith, carrying on like its representative of the majority of Muslims will only make the problem worse.
***Only the moderates of that faith can do that, just like any other faith. WE can't do that. If they don't, then you're left with the terrorists and guerrilla wars and you have to act on that basis.

This is absolutely true.

What we can do, of course, is help or hinder the moderates by our behaviour, laws and so on towards them.

Well each nation can do a lot, depending on its own cuture. Some can be accomodating, some can treat all the faiths the same and strictly at arm's length (France), some could go the Saudi way and ban a faith completely.

mattyrm wrote:Sorry what was that? I thought i had already explained to you via PM that i dont actually read anything exceptionally boring, self important people had to say?

Yeah, I know, you’ve got your opinion and it makes you happy so you don’t like people pointing out that it doesn’t make much sense. I get that. Thing is, I’m an optimist, and I think that sooner or later everyone can be brought around to sensible opinions. So I’m gonna keep pointing out where you’re wrong.

From the look of it, you’ll keep crying about that. But what else can I do… a man’s gotta try.

Frazzled wrote:***You not seen many criminal cases then. Its "odd" for a defendant to say anything in a criminal case if he doesn't have to.

Looking at it that way relies on ignoring the political nature of the trial. If he was on trial for murder, and the issues in dispute were matters of fact, then it’d make sense. But much of this trial is based on the legitimacy of what he’s saying, and the only way that legitimacy can be established is by him talking about his statements.

***Only the moderates of that faith can do that, just like any other faith. WE can't do that. If they don't, then you're left with the terrorists and guerrilla wars and you have to act on that basis.

The first part of that is fair, the moderates themselves have to play a role in rejecting the extremists. It’s the nature of things that moderates will be fairly passive through the process though, that’s what being moderate means.

I’m not sure about the second part… of course we have to act to stop the extremists, and capture or kill them as necessary to prevent them doing any harm. But that goal isn’t aided by confusing the terrorists with the greater population. I’m really not sure what you mean by ‘act on that basis’.

Frazzled wrote:You missed the interesting This Week townhall with several prominent Brit types talking about global sharia being a requirement of their faith.

If its informed it really needs to be open and not bound by PC nonesense either. Clearly if Wilders being prosecuted such a debate cannot occur in that country.

Why? Advocating global Sharia law isn't hate speech by any stretch of the imagination.

To give you guys some inside story.

The judge did want the debate, he tried to provoke it.
But to get this info you would have to live in this gak hole.
You have no idea how messed up my country is.

The problem is that a lot of people are provoked by Wilders. Each statement he makes is big news "looky here what Wilders says now!"

He's been called out to defend his opinion lots of times, but he refuses to do so. A Wilders reply to criticism of his statement is always another statement about the evils of the leftist-church and islam.

The problem is that not enough people take the islamic threats serious, and if they do they get sued!

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You missed the interesting This Week townhall with several prominent Brit types talking about global sharia being a requirement of their faith.

If its informed it really needs to be open and not bound by PC nonesense either. Clearly if Wilders being prosecuted such a debate cannot occur in that country.

Why? Advocating global Sharia law isn't hate speech by any stretch of the imagination.

It is if you're at the other end of the sword.

Hate speech is just speech you disagree with.

Geert Wilders opinions are uncomfortable, and thus they are challenged.

Truth is no matter what the politically correct nincompoops say a sizable minority of Moslems want their own way at any cost, refuse to integrate and most damningly the majority of Islam is not doing enough to reign them in. If the majority do nothing the minority hold power, so in a very real way the extremists are those who speak for Islam regardless of their actual demographic proportion of the whole.

I remebmer the BBC interviewing mosdelm community leaders the day after the 7/7 bombings and asking them if they condemn them. I remeber the stony silence as they refused to do so.

Wilders commentaries remeain necessary however uncomfortable so long as the supposed westernised moderate Islamic minority continues to refuse to utterly refute the claims of Islamic extermists.

Are relgious killers holy? Y/N
If your place of worship answers yes then that place of worship should be shut down until the answer is no

This is fairer than it first appears because it can be applied accross the board despite the imblance on which relgions actually go out and cause killings. I would liike to see the same logic apply to other extreme militant groups, there arent many but they do exist and simply also placing a no tolerance on Jewish exteremism aka' the only solution to Palestinain is a Final Solution.' will be enough to apply balance. Finding extremists will be more difficult, not because they dont exist but because Jewish extremism is far better concealed.
Christian extremism is the problem to find, there is no Christian holy land war going on there is no point at which you can see the militancy.
Most Christian extremism is on points of opinion rather than action, such as Westboro Baptists. Its also relatively rare especially when you see just how vast the church actually is.

Still its already lobsidedly legislated against, especially in the UK. Best example here is that critique of homosexuality (not persecution, just being willing to openly say you think it wrong) is not to be tolerated by law, but the reverse is acceptable. You can call relgions wrong as often as you like and as fervently as yiou like. Furthermore the critique of homosexuality by the Moslems is oddly completely ignored and is far more extreme than anything in the churches.

Hardline Christian Priest: 'Homoesexuality is a sin, we dont want it in our church.'
PC Idiot: 'You vile bigots,we demand the government fine your church.'
Hardline Moslem Priest: 'Homosexuals should be eradicated.'
PC Idiot: 'We welcome the diversity of your cultural opinion.'

Ever wondered why Peter Tatchel et al don't bother attacking Mosques for what they beleive about gays.


Holland is gearing towards similar lobsided tolerances towards different religions that we are experiencing. The deciding factor is comfort levels. The PC lobby and the unthinking majority are ok to see a church get some, but when you critique a relgion that is a genuine threat and cannot be controlled and is now established inside your borders people get edgy. Its appeasement pure and simple.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Sorry what was that? I thought i had already explained to you via PM that i dont actually read anything exceptionally boring, self important people had to say?

Yeah, I know, you’ve got your opinion and it makes you happy so you don’t like people pointing out that it doesn’t make much sense. I get that. Thing is, I’m an optimist, and I think that sooner or later everyone can be brought around to sensible opinions. So I’m gonna keep pointing out where you’re wrong.

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. 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"

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?

And here's the thing though, i have disagreements with lots of people, but i actually LIKE talking to them. I can get pretty much your opinion from any one of the numerous left leaning moderates on this site without having to read the self important, boring, ridiculously pompus things you write.

Shuma keeps me right, and he actually manages to be funny when he is being sharp with me, you just.. exist.

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




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
I remebmer the BBC interviewing moslem community leaders the day after the 7/7 bombings and asking them if they condemn them. I remeber the stony silence as they refused to do so.

QFT.

Islam already gets too damn much respect.

Its time to ditch that carrot and use the stick on these two-faced sneaks who are trying to import their own archaic values into Western Europe.

Orlanth wrote:I remebmer the BBC interviewing mosdelm community leaders the day after the 7/7 bombings and asking them if they condemn them. I remeber the stony silence as they refused to do so.

Rather like the stony silence when Gerry Adams would be asked about IRA attacks or when Dakka's Christians respond to 'young earthers' deciding school curriculums.

What is it all these people have in common? (semi-rhetorical)

Are you comparing Dakka's Christians to IRA members? Choose your words carefully, the account you save from banning may be your own.

I didnt get that at all from what he said Frazz, what he meant was

"People dont like to answer when they know people wont like the answer"

ie. Gerry Adams was blatantly a supporter of IRA bombings, many Muslims are blatantly supporters of AQ and Christians are well aware that most people think that Creationism is so laughable you really shouldnt admit it if you are one.

My question is straightforward.

Frazzled wrote:Are you comparing Dakka's Christians to IRA members? Choose your words carefully, the account you save from banning may be your own.

Does this mean you're not willing to condemn young earthers? Mattyrm has it, they're all people uncomfortable with condeming people they consider themselves closer to than the audience they are asked to condem them to. Condeming your 'own' to strangers is hard. You were supposed to pass over the trick conclusion, that they're all religious, as false.

You've managed to amaze, please, amuse and dissapoint me in the space of two sentences.

George Spiggott wrote:

You've managed to amaze, please, amuse and dissapoint me in the space of two sentences.

That pleases me greatly.

Frazzled wrote:Are you comparing Dakka's Christians to IRA members? Choose your words carefully, the account you save from banning may be your own.

got your goat did he?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Are you comparing Dakka's Christians to IRA members? Choose your words carefully, the account you save from banning may be your own.

got your goat did he?

Not good to get a Mod's goat for violating Rule #1 on such an epic scale. Inpugning other Dakka members ist verbotten (except Leichtensteinians of course). Just a piece of advice.

George Spiggott wrote:
What is it all these people have in common? (semi-rhetorical)

And you've got it there. Religion had it's time, and now we should be moving past it. Instead of arguing who should build what temple/mosque/church where, how about we don't build any.. It's like dealing with my kids: You guys can't share the damn toys, guess what? Now nobody gets to play.
We keep trying to accomodate different religous creeds, and laws, but we fail to see how ridiculous those beliefs truly are. True, culture has a part to play, and religion can be a big part of your culture, but that only proves that religion cannot be taken at it's word, and that it's only ever been a loose amalgamation of tribal loyalty, and rules for when it's time to "go" against the guy on the other side of the river.
I'm not promoting a Marxist state run agenda against religion. The death of god can only come about when the people finally make that choice for themselves. I do advocate however, that the state recognize no religion in any way shape or form. There are simply too many different sects and beliefs to make any one party happy, and that doesn't even count the zealots who can't wait to die, and want to take a few innocents with them. Remove your "personal relationship" with god, and all of a sudden we have alot less to fight about.... Just saying...

you know its a pity you atheists arent more effective evangelizers. if you were you might actually get into a position to enforce all of these enlightened policies.

Lint wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:
What is it all these people have in common? (semi-rhetorical)

And you've got it there. Religion had it's time, and now we should be moving past it. Instead of arguing who should build what temple/mosque/church where, how about we don't build any.. It's like dealing with my kids: You guys can't share the damn toys, guess what? Now nobody gets to play.
We keep trying to accomodate different religous creeds, and laws, but we fail to see how ridiculous those beliefs truly are. True, culture has a part to play, and religion can be a big part of your culture, but that only proves that religion cannot be taken at it's word, and that it's only ever been a loose amalgamation of tribal loyalty, and rules for when it's time to "go" against the guy on the other side of the river.
I'm not promoting a Marxist state run agenda against religion. The death of god can only come about when the people finally make that choice for themselves. I do advocate however, that the state recognize no religion in any way shape or form. There are simply too many different sects and beliefs to make any one party happy, and that doesn't even count the zealots who can't wait to die, and want to take a few innocents with them. Remove your "personal relationship" with god, and all of a sudden we have alot less to fight about.... Just saying...

the First Amendment protects me from you. The Second Amendment protects the First. Remember in 2012. A vote for Il Duce -er Frazzled yea Frazzled- is a vote for Freedom!

The twentyfirst ammendment protects my right to go on forums and pick fights with cranky old men

Really though, would we be that much worse off if instead of protecting freedom of religion it was changed to freedom from religion? Humanity has moved to a point where we don't require nymphs, satyrs, djinns, ghosts, spirits, or whatever to explain the strange and wonderfull things that occur in this life. Now instead of offering comfort to the masses, it's become a point of contention and conflict, because religion sees the sand running out as science encroaches more and more on it's territory, thereby forcing more and more nut-jobs out into the open.

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Are you comparing Dakka's Christians to IRA members? Choose your words carefully, the account you save from banning may be your own.

got your goat did he?

Not good to get a Mod's goat for violating Rule #1 on such an epic scale. Inpugning other Dakka members ist verbotten (except Leichtensteinians of course). Just a piece of advice.

You do know that I didn't break rule #1, you just thought I did. Would it help if I posted something that could be replied to with a Weiner dog picture?

Keep up the good work.

George Spiggott wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Are you comparing Dakka's Christians to IRA members? Choose your words carefully, the account you save from banning may be your own.

got your goat did he?

Not good to get a Mod's goat for violating Rule #1 on such an epic scale. Inpugning other Dakka members ist verbotten (except Leichtensteinians of course). Just a piece of advice.

You do know that I didn't break rule #1, you just thought I did. Would it help if I posted something that could be replied to with a Weiner dog picture?

Keep up the good work.

You stated Dakka's Christians. Thats a potential violation. Don't push this.