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.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You're being pretty intolerant of opposing opinions I think.

The ol' "stop being intolerant of intolerance" play.

I didn't know being intolerant of terrorists was a bad thing.

It isn't and no one suggested that. The issue is with lumping everyone in a religion in with those terrorists. That is a gakky thing to do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

You better have a source for this, right fething now.

Also, just like to point out to people who were defending what he said on the previous page as saying the fringe is growing that he is here saying that the moderates are apparently "tolerating" it.

How about the fact that "5 British Muslims a week" are joining ISIS?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ahmed/why-are-european-muslims-_b_6175334.html

Grey Templar wrote:
Muslims aren't a race. The only people who bring race into the mixture are left leaning terror apologists who claim that being anti-muslim is racist. The irony is that they're the ones being racist when they say that. Left wingers also need to learn to actually formulate actual arguments instead of just yelling ''bigot'' or ''racist'' whenever someone has the gall to disagree with them. It just makes you look like a rabid loon.

I have plenty of arguments. And honestly, instant snark to your initial statement was probably not a constructive response. I apologize for that.

And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

You have a source for the 'moderate Muslims supporting terror"? Because the fact that most if not all of the scum that commit these attacks have been banned from the local mosque and reported to the police.

I

ts also highly incorrect to draw parallels with any right wing terrorism. There isn't a highly organized terror group radicalizing christians and other right wingers enmass. There isn't a growing number of right wing inspired terrorism beginning to plague western civilization.

Breitbart, Rebel Media, Britain First, English Defence League, Sons of Odin. There's many, many more. Spend any amount of time in those places and you will see their rhetoric is just as vile as the various Daesh groups out there. There is a large, ugly fething moronic reaction to these sick attacks, and places like this only serve to fuel the fire of stupid fear.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

You're being pretty intolerant of opposing opinions I think.

The ol' "stop being intolerant of intolerance" play.

Who would best express that as a meme? Pepe? Yoda? Cookie Monster?

And yet when people say we should not tolerate Islamist intolerance, you call them racist. The Double Think is strong with you.

Nobody said we should not tolerate radical terrorism. I said we should not tolerate gak speech like the inference that a rash of attacks in the West means that all Muslims are complicit.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

You better have a source for this, right fething now.

Also, just like to point out to people who were defending what he said on the previous page as saying the fringe is growing that he is here saying that the moderates are apparently "tolerating" it.

How about the fact that "5 British Muslims a week" are joining ISIS?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ahmed/why-are-european-muslims-_b_6175334.html

That is not proof that the radical fringe is growing. You need to demonstrate what the radical fringe was and what it has grown to be and then show how it has increased, taking into account overall population increases.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

You better have a source for this, right fething now.

Also, just like to point out to people who were defending what he said on the previous page as saying the fringe is growing that he is here saying that the moderates are apparently "tolerating" it.

How about the fact that "5 British Muslims a week" are joining ISIS?

So an incredibly small number.Seeing as how there are ~3 million in Britian, even if that was steady over 20 years (And the population of Muslims didn't grow at all), that is less than one percent. Doesn't support your argument. . Still quite a smaller number than the population growth rate overall.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

Replace 'Muslim' with 'Christian' and you would have just as true of statement. Just look at the lack of outrage over the Christian terrorist that shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado from the vocal representatives of Christianity.

Your counter argument was to bring up the Christian attack carried out two years ago and say that's the same as the monthly Islamic attacks?

I could have gone with the Black church shooting, or the stabbing in Oregon, etc.

Regardless, there still wasn't any outrage from the self professed Christians when the shooting happened, which is kind of the point.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

Replace 'Muslim' with 'Christian' and you would have just as true of statement. Just look at the lack of outrage over the Christian terrorist that shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado from the vocal representatives of Christianity.

Your counter argument was to bring up the Christian attack carried out two years ago and say that's the same as the monthly Islamic attacks?

This is what is known as left wing hypocrisy. They try to equate two things that are on completely different levels of magnitude and say that they're the same. Christian terrorism has such an incredibly small number of events they're statistically non-existent. Islamic terrorism has a massive number of events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
I could have gone with the Black church shooting, or the stabbing in Oregon, etc.

Regardless, there still wasn't any outrage from the self professed Christians when the shooting happened, which is kind of the point.

Saying there was no outrage is completely false. Christians everywhere condemned the attack.

Again, there is no appreciable similarity despite your claims they are equivalent. No major terrorist organization radicalized him.

So maybe ditch the self righteousness and stop calling anybody who disagrees with you a bigot.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

Replace 'Muslim' with 'Christian' and you would have just as true of statement. Just look at the lack of outrage over the Christian terrorist that shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado from the vocal representatives of Christianity.

Your counter argument was to bring up the Christian attack carried out two years ago and say that's the same as the monthly Islamic attacks?

This is what is known as left wing hypocrisy. They try to equate two things that are on completely different levels of magnitude and say that they're the same. Christian terrorism has such an incredibly small number of events they're statistically non-existent. Islamic terrorism has a massive number of events.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

Number of incidents due to radical Islam: 23. Other extremist attacks: 62. I call BS on your argument.

So maybe ditch the self righteousness and stop calling anybody who disagrees with you a bigot.

I'll call a bigot a bigot when they are saying gakky stuff. Disagreeing with me isn't enough to get that label. But continue to keep lying about that.

 skyth wrote:
I could have gone with the Black church shooting, or the stabbing in Oregon, etc.

Regardless, there still wasn't any outrage from the self professed Christians when the shooting happened, which is kind of the point.

Now you've got three examples. Glad to see our Jihadi friends beat that number this year alone.

Maybe there isn't much outrage because it doesn't happen consistently and every time it does happen, the perpetrator has quite a few screws loose in the attic.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.

Replace 'Muslim' with 'Christian' and you would have just as true of statement. Just look at the lack of outrage over the Christian terrorist that shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado from the vocal representatives of Christianity.

Your counter argument was to bring up the Christian attack carried out two years ago and say that's the same as the monthly Islamic attacks?

This is what is known as left wing hypocrisy. They try to equate two things that are on completely different levels of magnitude and say that they're the same. Christian terrorism has such an incredibly small number of events they're statistically non-existent. Islamic terrorism has a massive number of events.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683984.pdf

Number of incidents due to radical Islam: 23. Other extremist attacks: 62. I call BS on your argument.

Considering the kill count of those 23 attacks makes the other 62 look like a joke, his argument is still valid.

So maybe ditch the self righteousness and stop calling anybody who disagrees with you a bigot.

I'll call a bigot a bigot when they are saying gakky stuff. Disagreeing with me isn't enough to get that label. But continue to keep lying about that.

You just proved his point.

The more Muslims as a whole are demonised for terrorist attacks, the easier job Isis will have converting more Muslims to their cause. The divide between Muslims and everyone else is exactly what they want.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 skyth wrote:
I could have gone with the Black church shooting, or the stabbing in Oregon, etc.

Regardless, there still wasn't any outrage from the self professed Christians when the shooting happened, which is kind of the point.

Now you've got three examples. Glad to see our Jihadi friends beat that number this year alone.

Maybe there isn't much outrage because it doesn't happen consistently and every time it does happen, the perpetrator has quite a few screws loose in the attic.

Read the GAO report I posted. That puts a lie to your statement.

And funny how the people like you that commit terrorist attacks have 'quite a few screws loose in the attic' but somehow the Muslim terrorists don't...

 skyth wrote:
And funny how the people like you that commit terrorist attacks have 'quite a few screws loose in the attic' but somehow the Muslim terrorists don't...

So I'm a terrorist now? Good to know.

Nearly fell off my chair.

Again, can we quit the personal attacks?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And funny how the people like you that commit terrorist attacks

So I'm a terrorist now? Good to know.

FYI - skyth worded that really poorly but what he appears to have meant is "when [people who are like you] commit terrorist attacks," presumably getting to the facat that you are not Muslim, as opposed to calling you a terrorist. That said, please everyone keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

 skyth wrote:

And funny how the people like you that commit terrorist attacks have 'quite a few screws loose in the attic' but somehow the Muslim terrorists don't...

With Manchu's update...

I'm not sure why you'd say that... I think anyone who does these heinous acts, they're "quite a few screws loose in the attic". Regardless of their justifications....

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

And funny how the people like you that commit terrorist attacks have 'quite a few screws loose in the attic' but somehow the Muslim terrorists don't...

With Manchu's update...

I'm not sure why you'd say that... I think anyone who does these heinous acts, they're "quite a few screws loose in the attic". Regardless of their justifications....

The point is that whilst people push the "screw loose" story when it is someone white, right-wing or christian or whatever, that rationalisation is often not nearly as prominent when the person committing the act is muslim or black or middle eastern etc.

"Muslims aren't a race" is in itself a racist argument, as it assumes that there are actual races (or that anything being racism is impossible, which makes no sense).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:

And funny how the people like you that commit terrorist attacks have 'quite a few screws loose in the attic' but somehow the Muslim terrorists don't...

With Manchu's update...

I'm not sure why you'd say that... I think anyone who does these heinous acts, they're "quite a few screws loose in the attic". Regardless of their justifications....

The point is that whilst people push the "screw loose" story when it is someone white, right-wing or christian or whatever, that rationalisation is often not nearly as prominent when the person committing the act is muslim or black or middle eastern etc.

...eh... I could be wrong.

When someone acts on violent extremism, ie these Islamist Terrorists... I don't think people are also saying that these people are sane in some way shape or form. Probably brainwashed is a more apt description?

Take White Supremacist Dylan Roof... he was also labeled as a domestic terrorist by the FBI and media in general.

Whereas Adam Lanza... while what he did could also be labeled domestic terrorism, there's no doubt that he had a slew amount of mental disorders that would definitely characterize Lanza "a few screws loose in the attic".

Roof, on the other hand, wanted to start a fething race war and was totally cognizant of what he was doing...

Same way about the Islamist's atrocities, they know perfectly well what they're doing, but doing so because of their zealous beliefs.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Muslims aren't a race" is in itself a racist argument, as it assumes that there are actual races (or that anything being racism is impossible, which makes no sense).

Assumes there are races? What?? Are you saying that "assumption" is wrong and there are NO races? How then can there be racism without races? I really don't see the logic in your post, it comes across as non-sensical. Could you rephrase that please because it is very poorly articulated.

Saying "Islam is not a race" is hardly racist, its a statement of fact.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Muslims aren't a race" is in itself a racist argument, as it assumes that there are actual races (or that anything being racism is impossible, which makes no sense).

eh? Something lost in translation?

<google, define race>

noun
1.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

Just about every race on this planet practice some form of Islamic religion.

What you probably want to say, is bigotry. But, really when arguments get boiled down to "x isn't y" the conversation is getting bogged down by pedantry.

This is more easy when you hate all humans equally... that way nobody can call you bigot or racist

Death penalty for everybody again!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Muslims aren't a race" is in itself a racist argument, as it assumes that there are actual races (or that anything being racism is impossible, which makes no sense).

I can see the logic behind this. Is correct that theres aren't human races but "Muslims aren't a race" isn't in itsellf racists if is refering to someone that has call someone's Islamophoby as racism.
(I'm Islamophobic myself... Religiousphobic even. As a catholic-christian... don't make me go to another procession in my life or I'll do crazy s**t!)

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
"Muslims aren't a race" is in itself a racist argument, as it assumes that there are actual races (or that anything being racism is impossible, which makes no sense).

Thats factually incorrect. You can't claim it is racism, when its a religion and any ethnic group may be a member of that religion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
This is more easy when you hate all humans equally... that way nobody can call you bigot or racist

Death penalty for everybody again!

Now here's a man who understands.

So the whole BS argument that it isn't racism...I ask you this...What is the mental picture that your average person (And especially right-winger) conjures up as an Islamic Terrorist? I bet they are suitably brown.

 skyth wrote:
So the whole BS argument that it isn't racism...I ask you this...What is the mental picture that your average person (And especially right-winger) conjures up as an Islamic Terrorist? I bet they are suitably brown.

Yes, and? Still doesn't make Islam a race, no matter how closely correlated they are.

 skyth wrote:
So the whole BS argument that it isn't racism...I ask you this...What is the mental picture that your average person (And especially right-winger) conjures up as an Islamic Terrorist? I bet they are suitably brown.

Thats your strawman, you wear it not everyone else.

Islam is an ideology and a system of beliefs and moral values. Like any religion, its a set of ideas on how you should live your life. Ideas can and should be scrutinized and criticized. No idea should EVER be off limits to criticism, no matter how much people cry Racist!

I dislike Islam, because its values and beliefs and ideology are inherently anti liberal, intolerant, and aggressively proselytizing and therefore in my view incompatible with the sort of western, pluralist liberal society that I want to live in (and before anybody pipes up with "What about Christianity!", know that I am atheist). I don't like Islam's oppression of homosexuals for instance, or how women are second class citizens in many Islamic countries.

Just look at this map of legal stances on homosexuality. Homosexuals are better off by an order of magnitude outside of Islam's influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg

Individual Muslims on the other hand I give the benefit of the doubt and will regard and judge as individuals. As people here are fond of saying, Islam is not a monolith, and Muslims are not a hive mind. Even though I regard their religion as inherently intolerant, not all individual Muslims believe or practice their religion to the same intensity and degree of literalism. One hardcore conservative Muslim might be extremely homophobic and in favour of Sharia law and execution for gay people. Another Muslim might be laid back and not care.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Islam is an ideology and a system of beliefs and moral values. Like any religion, its a set of ideas on how you should live your life. Ideas can and should be scrutinized and criticized. No idea should EVER be off limits to criticism, no matter how much people cry Racist!

I dislike Islam, because its values and beliefs and ideology are inherently anti liberal, intolerant, and aggressively proselytizing and therefore in my view incompatible with the sort of western, pluralist liberal society that I want to live in (and before anybody pipes up with "What about Christianity!", know that I am atheist). I don't like Islam's oppression of homosexuals for instance, or how women are second class citizens in many Islamic countries.

Just look at this map of legal stances on homosexuality. Homosexuals are better off by an order of magnitude outside of Islam's influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_laws_pertaining_to_homosexual_relationships_and_expression.svg

Individual Muslims on the other hand I give the benefit of the doubt and will regard and judge as individuals. As people here are fond of saying, Islam is not a monolith, and Muslims are not a hive mind. Even though I regard their religion as inherently intolerant, not all individual Muslims believe or practice their religion to the same intensity and degree of literalism. One hardcore conservative Muslim might be extremely homophobic and in favour of Sharia law and execution for gay people. Another Muslim might be laid back and not care.

I largely agree with this statement.

My experience would be this, however:
"One hardcore conservative Muslim might be extremely homophobic and in favour of Sharia law and execution for gay people. Ten Muslims might be laid back and not care."

The problems is how hard the hardcore and radicals try always to reach power to push their agendas, so one hardcore is just enough
Normal people just want to live their lives in peace.

We can go back to WW2 Germany to see how the social pressure can make normal people accept and even commit aborrent things.